The American Asian studies establishment

Abstract

Subsequent to a U.S. Army Symposium on its Limited-War Mission (1962), an organization called the Foreign Areas Research Coordinating Group [FAR] was formed under the State Department to coordinate foreign areas research and to recruit the interests of social scientists to the conduct of research relevant to the needs of FAR's member agencies: Army, Air Force, Navy, CIA, ACDA, etc. FAR's first step was to set up in 1964 a FAR China Subcommittee, chaired by Dr. Allen Whiting, and mandated to serve as a catalyst for the stimulation of research both in and out of government. In May 1965 the FAR China Subcommittee produced a “Statement of External Research Priorities” reflecting the needs of its member agencies. The Statement was communicated to the Joint Committee on Contemporary China [JCCC] of the Social Science Research Council [SSRC] and the American Council of Learned Societies [ACLS]. While the response of the JCCC to this Statement is still unclear, there is, prima facie, considerable correspondence between it and the work sponsored by the JCCC and, in fact, the work in the contemporary China field in general. We therefore demand access to the files of the FAR China Subcommittee to assess the extent of such correspondence, if any.     

McCarran's legacy: The association for Asian studies

Abstract

Historians have played an important role in modern America. While the chorus in Sigmund Romberg's musical The Student Prince bellows, “History's a mystery,” off the wooden stage and in the world of concrete and asphalt where we live our lives, historical knowledge is something other than mystery. It has been and is a major force in shaping our self-images and expectations. It can be a potent weapon for manipulating society or for resisting manipulation, and its power has been recognized by the American establishment.     

The development of the role of the European Parliament

SUMMARY

In this article, Sandro Guerrieri argues the case for studying the emergence of the European Parliament from the historical perspective, now made more feasible by the growing availability of the European Union's own archives at Florence. He suggests that, so far, most analysis of the development of the Parliament has been undertaken by lawyers and political scientists. A historical approach is particularly important, because the European Union does not exactly fit the normal institutional classifications, it is not an interstate association, nor a developed federal state, but combines elements of both. It follows that the European Parliament has developed in ways which partly replicate the development of parliaments in national sovereign or federal states, but is also adapted to the unique political structures of the European Union. The article then traces the path of development from the original Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community, made up of members nominated by the national parliaments to act as a monitor of the work of the High Authority. From its inception, this Assembly began to press for the organization and authority of a parliament. From then on the Assembly and its successor institutions, which in 1962 finally secured the official title of the European Parliament, has steadily enlarged its powers. The article suggests that while the Parliament can be expected to develop many features that have characterized Europe's national parliaments, it will diverge from them because historically it is a pioneering experiment in supranational parliamentarianism.     

The disciplinary,interdisciplinary and global dimensions of African studies

Abstract

In discussing African studies or any other field, it is important to note that the economies and cultures of knowledge production are an integral part of complex and sometimes contradictory, but always changing, institutional, intellectual and ideological processes and practices that occur, simultaneously, at national and transnational, or local and global levels. From their inception, universities have always been, or aspired to be, universalistic and universalising institutions. This is not the place to examine the changes and challenges facing universities in Africa and elsewhere, a subject dealt with at length in African universities in the twenty‐first century (Zeleza and Olokoshi 2004). It is simply to point out that African studies ‐ the production of African(ist) knowledges ‐ has concrete and conceptual, and material and moral contexts, which create the variations that are so evident across the world and across disciplines.This article is divided into four parts. First, it explores the changing disciplinary and interdisciplinary architecture of knowledge in general. Second, it examines the disciplinary encounters of African studies in the major social science and humanities disciplines, from anthropology, sociology, literature, linguistics and philosophy, to history, political science, economics geography and psychology. It focuses on the interdisciplinary challenges of the field in which the engagements of African studies with interdisciplinary programmes such as women's and gender studies, public health studies, art studies, and communication studies, and with interdisciplinary paradigms including cultural studies and postcolonial studies are probed. Finally, this article looks at the focus on the study of Africa in international studies, that is, the state of African studies as seen through the paradigms of globalisation and in different global regions, principally Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Scandinavia and Russia), the Americas (the United States of America (US), the Caribbean and Brazil), and Asia‐Pacific (India, Australia, China and Japan). Space does not allow for a more systematic analysis of African studies within Africa itself, a subject implied in the observations in the article, but which deserves an extended treatment in its own right.