Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies 3030343413, 9783030343415

Citation preview

Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies Edited by Regine Criser · Ervin Malakaj

Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies

Regine Criser · Ervin Malakaj Editors

Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies

Editors Regine Criser Department of Languages and Literatures University of North Carolina Asheville Asheville, NC, USA

Ervin Malakaj Department of Central, Eastern and Northern European Studies University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada

ISBN 978-3-030-34341-5 ISBN 978-3-030-34342-2  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Gary Ervin Malakaj To My Parents Regine Criser

Acknowledgements

This volume was conceived in the summer of 2016 in Berlin, when we first began to conceptualize a way to bring German Studies scholars and practitioners together to think of ways to create more equitable and just learning experiences for our students. A conversation led to the formation of the scholarly collective, “Diversity, Decolonization, and the German Curriculum” (DDGC). Shortly thereafter, we organized the first conference, which took place on March 2–5, 2017 at the University of North Carolina, Asheville. The conference is now a biennial event, the most recent conference taking place on March 1–3, 2019 at St. Olaf College, which was organized by Kathryn Sederberg and Amanda Ziemba Randall. Along the way, we met dozens of dedicated, critical, and concerned professionals, who have helped promote our work, support us in various ways, and who, most importantly, helped us to think critically about our field. DDGC has, from its earliest moments, been less about individuals and more about the collective. In the spirit of this collectivity, the collegiality and the fierce productive criticality that it has shaped, we would like to thank all of our friends, colleagues, and interlocutors, who are part of this broader community. We write this at a point of transition for DDGC: it is growing in ways we never quite anticipated. This volume, along with a number of other initiatives that have sprung from the group, is part of an ongoing dedication of scholars and professionals seeking out ways to continue to develop more equitable and just postsecondary learning and working environments. vii

viii  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We have worked many hours on the volume. Our interlocutors in the field have been an invaluable source of inspiration and motivation. They were, however, not the only or the primary source of support. We are fortunate to have supportive and loving family environments, which sustained us through this work. Regine would like to thank Jason, whose support makes this work possible as well as Lea and Finn, who give this work meaning and purpose. Ervin would like to thank Gary, whose support made this and all other projects possible, as well as Darlene, who has helped in her own way. Regine Criser Ervin Malakaj

Contents

1

Introduction: Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies 1 Regine Criser and Ervin Malakaj

2

Accounting for Our Settler Colonialism: Toward an Unsettled German Studies in the United States 23 Ashwin Manthripragada and Emina Mušanović

3

Habits of Mind, Habits of Heart: Cultivating Humanity Through a Decolonized German Studies Curriculum 41 Amanda Randall

4

Social Justice in the Language Curriculum: Interrogating the Goals and Outcomes of Language Education in College 63 Magda Tarnawska Senel

5

Decolonizing German Studies While Dissecting Race in the American Classroom 83 Priscilla Layne

ix

x 

CONTENTS

6

Documents of Colonialism and Racial Theorizing in the German Classroom 101 Evan Torner

7

Decolonizing the Mental Lexicon: Critical Whiteness Studies Perspectives in the Language Classroom 119 Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

8

A Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence: Scaffolding the Shift from Culture-Specific to Culture-General 139 Beate Brunow and Britton Newman

9

Study Abroad Otherwise 157 Janice McGregor

10 A Question of Inclusion: Intercultural Competence, Systematic Racism, and the North American German Classroom 177 Adrienne Merritt 11 Supporting Graduate Students of Color in German Studies: A Syllabus 197 Brenna Reinhart Byrd 12 Digital Media Network Projects: Classroom Inclusivity Through a Symphilosophical Approach 215 Renata Fuchs 13 Disrupting the Norm: Disability, Access, and Inclusion in the German Language Classroom 233 Petra Watzke 14 Multidirectional Memory as Decolonial Pedagogical Practice in German Studies 251 Lauren Hansen

CONTENTS  

xi

15 “Please Don’t Gender Me!” Strategies for Inclusive Language Instruction in a Gender-Diverse Campus Community 269 Angineh Djavadghazaryans 16 Intersectionality and Notions of Diversity in the Internationalized German Studies Program at the University of Melbourne 289 Daniela Müller 17 Dear Incoming Graduate Student Colleague 309 David Gramling Appendix A: D  evelopmental Model of Intercultural Competence 327 Appendix B 333 Appendix C: Meine Identität 335 Appendix D: Word Painting 339 Appendix E: Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker 343 Appendix F: Priscilla Layne 351 Index 363

Notes

on

Contributors

Beate Brunow serves as a Director of Academic Partnerships and Initiatives at the University of Georgia. She holds a Ph.D. in German from The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests focus on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, foreign language pedagogy, and the integration of intercultural competence into foreign language. Brenna Reinhart Byrd is an Assistant Professor and the Director of Beginning German in the Modern and Classical Languages, Literatures and Cultures Department at the University of Kentucky. Her research interests include sociocognitive approaches to second language acquisition and pedagogy, multiliteracies, sociolinguistics, Hip Hop studies, teaching for social justice, game studies, and historical linguistics. Thanks to funding from the NEH, she is currently working with her husband and colleague Andrew Byrd to create a video game which would make the fields of IndoEuropean Studies, Classics, Comparative Mythology, Archaeology, and Anthropology accessible and engaging to the general public. Regine Criser  is Assistant Professor of German Studies at the University of North Carolina Asheville, USA, where she also serves as the coordinator of the First Year Seminars and the Director of the UNCA Prison Education Program. She is a co-founder of the Diversity, Decolonization, and the German Curriculum (DDGC) scholarly collective. Her research focuses on cultural representations of the GDR in contemporary Germany, inclusive pedagogy, and conceptualizations of belonging. xiii

xiv  

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Angineh Djavadghazaryans is an Assistant Professor of German and Affiliated Assistant Professor of Women and Gender Studies at Oakland University. Her research focuses on shame in nineteenth-century German literature. Additionally, she is interested in the role shame plays in foreign language classrooms and how it affects, regulates, and influences language acquisition. Renata Fuchs  is a lecturer of German at UCLA and received her Ph.D from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research areas include the Romantic era, German-Jewish literature, Holocaust studies, and women’s studies. Her project on Eva Sandberg Siao, GermanJewish photographer, involves the fields of art, history, and literature and results in a collaborative effort of the UCLA Confucius Institute, Fowler Museum, Department of Germanic Languages, and Alan D. Leve Center for Jewish Studies. Her recent translation project focuses on diaries by Leon Najberg, the last survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Maureen Gallagher holds a Ph.D. in German Studies from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and is currently working on a book manuscript on whiteness in Wilhelmine German youth literature and culture. She is on the authoring team of the online, open-access German curriculum Grenzenlos Deutsch. David Gramling is a professor in the Department of German Studies at the University of Arizona in Tucson, as well as a literary translator from Turkish and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Literary Translators Association. David spent his early adulthood as a queer activist and social worker. His perspective on absolutely everything is shaped by his lifelong experiences with a visual disability called ocular albinism, which prevented previous generations in his family from finishing high school. Forthcoming monographs include The Invention of Multilingualism (Cambridge University Press, 2022) and Literature in the Linguacene (Stanford University Press, 2023). Lauren Hansen is a Visiting Assistant Professor of German at New College of Florida. Dr. Hansen’s research interests include family memory and postmemory in post-1989 novels; East German literature; post1989 representations of East Germany; minority literature; migration literature; and pedagogical practices that foster diversity and decolonization in German Studies curricula.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS  

xv

Priscilla Layne has an interdisciplinary approach to twentieth- and twenty-first-century German literature and culture focusing in particular on questions of race and gender. In addition to her publications on Turkish-German culture, the dialectic of Blackness and whiteness, hip hop and (post)subculture studies, her most recent publication White Rebels in Black: Appropriating Black Popular Culture in Postwar Germany was published with University of Michigan Press in 2018. She is the co-editor along with Melissa Etzler of Rebellion and Revolution: Defiance in German Language, History and Art (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010) and has translated into English works by Feridun Zaimoglu and Nurkan Erpulat. Ervin Malakaj  is Assistant Professor of German Studies at the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a co-founder of the Diversity, Decolonization, and the German Curriculum (DDGC) scholarly collective. He specializes in late-18th- to 21st-century German media and cultural history. His research focuses on 19th-century literary cultures, film history, narrative theory, queer theory, and critical pedagogy. Ashwin Manthripragada is drawn to cultural production that vexes definitions of culture. His work is rooted in German-language cultural production of the twentieth century that imagines “India,” but it also branches out significantly to other fields of inquiry that explore or obscure the dimensions between Self and Other. Janice McGregor received her Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University and is an Assistant Professor of German Studies as well as an affiliated faculty member in the Second Language Acquisition and Teaching graduate interdisciplinary program at the University of Arizona. Her research interests include learner beliefs & language ideologies and qualitative research methods in study abroad. Adrienne Merritt recently completed her doctorate at University of California, Berkeley under Niklaus Largier, focusing on medieval German studies. She is currently a Visiting Assistant Professor at Washington and Lee University. Daniela Müller is a DAAD lecturer at the University of Melbourne. She completed an M.A. in German Philology at the University of Potsdam and a M.A. in Art History at the Technical University of Berlin. Before coming to the University of Melbourne in 2015, she taught

xvi  

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

German language and culture in Spain and Colombia for three years. At Melbourne she coordinates and teaches German Studies within the School of Languages and Linguistics. Her research focuses on German Expressionism, European Modernism and didactic mediation of German language, literature, culture, and art. Emina Mušanović  is a scholar whose life has been punctuated by experiences of forced displacement, refugee camps/housing, and repeat migration, all of which undeniably inform her approach to scholarship and her investment in transcultural, global justice/equity frameworks. She received her Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley in 2014. At the date of publication, Emina will be embarking on yet a new adventure as her position fell prey to the financialization of higher education. Britton Newman is an Associate Professor of Spanish at Wofford College. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research interests include the integration of intercultural competence into foreign language pedagogy and the development of curricular structures to maximize learning from study abroad. Amanda Randall  is an Assistant Professor of German at St. Olaf College. She holds a Ph.D. in Germanic Studies from The University of Texas at Austin and an M.A. in Cultural Anthropology from Rice University. Her research interests include language pedagogy, intellectual history, twentieth- and twenty-first-century German literature, and film studies. Magda Tarnawska Senel  is a lecturer and the Director of the German Language Program in the Department of Germanic Languages at the University of California, Los Angeles. She received her Ph.D. in German from the University of California, Irvine. Her research focuses on teaching languages and humanities for social justice and intersections of literature, politics, migration, and pop-culture in contemporary Germany. Evan Torner is an Assistant Professor of German Studies at the University of Cincinnati, where he is also affiliated with the Center for Film & Media Studies and the Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. He is currently Undergraduate Director of German Studies and the director of the UC Game Lab. Research interests include media of the Cold War, critical race theory, German science fiction, and role-playing games, having published numerous articles and book chapters on each topic. Major projects underway include the Handbook of

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS  

xvii

East German Cinema: The DEFA Legacy, co-edited with Henning Wrage and under contract with Walter De Gruyter, and a monograph entitled A Century and Beyond: Critical Readings of German Science-Fiction Cinema. Petra Watzke is an Assistant Professor in the Department of German Studies at Kalamazoo College. Her research interests include the representation of women in the context of technology in nineteenth-century literature, object-oriented feminism, women’s roles in early German film, and the advancement of accessibility, and inclusion in the academic classroom and beyond. Christin Zenker is a graduate student in the joint German and Comparative Literature program at Washington University in St. Louis. Christin has worked on Blackness and second-wave feminism in German studies, as well as systemic racism in geopolitical decisions surrounding the St. Louis area. Since 2016, she has developed an interest in curricular innovation and pedagogical methodologies. Her dissertation focuses on monocultural feminism, global sisterhood, and the diversification of voices in West Berlin of the 1970s and 1980s.

List of Figures

Chapter 9 Fig. 1 Screenshot of an early article in the Modern Language Journal (Hess 1917) 173

Chapter 16 Fig. 1 Diversity dimensions adapted from Thomas and May. I would like to acknowledge Isabel Krug, Christiaan De Beukelaer and Di Wang of my Graduate Certificate in University Teaching working group at the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education for developing this adaption 296

xix

List of Tables

Chapter 15 Table 1 Pronouns 281 Table 2 Possessive pronoun xier and its case endings 281 Table 3 Gender-neutral definite articles 282

Chapter 16 Table 1 Courtesy of Strategy, Planning and Resources, University of Melbourne (2017) 293 Table 2 Courtesy of Strategy, Planning and Resources, University of Melbourne (2017) 294 Table 3 Dimensions of student diversity 295

xxi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies Regine Criser and Ervin Malakaj

1  Decolonization and Diversity Writing about decolonization as two settler-immigrant scholars creates an irreconcilable tension. Ashwin Manthripragada and Emina Mušanović discuss this tension in detail in their chapter in this volume; however, we want to begin by acknowledging our implication in settler colonialism. Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang (2012) define settler colonialism as a form of colonialism in which “settlers come with the intention of making a new home on the land” (p. 5). As immigrants to North America, we are contributing to and benefitting from past and current settler colonialism. Both of our academic institutions are built on Indigenous land:

R. Criser  Department of Languages and Literatures, University of North Carolina Asheville, Asheville, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Malakaj (*)  Department of Central, Eastern and Northern European Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_1

1

2  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

the University of North Carolina, Asheville, on the territory of the Easter Band of the Cherokee, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Musqueam people. Both of our academic institutions also have established formal affiliation with the Indigenous people they have displaced, which manifest for example in the teaching of Indigenous languages and Indigenous studies, the naming of campus spaces in honor of the respective Indigenous people, as well as the participation of elders in important campus events such as commencement. However, neither institution aims to repatriate the colonized land they sit on and so the ultimate aim of decolonization, according to Tuck and Yang (2012), remains and will most like indefinitely remain unfulfilled. Further, while language classes and degrees in Indigenous studies have been added to the curriculum, they have not replaced or decentered Westernized, colonial ways of teaching and learning. In this regard, too, both of our institutions are implicated in what Tuck and Rubén A. Gaztambide-Fernández (2013) have termed curricular settler futurity, which describes “the continued and complete eradication of the original inhabitants of contested land” in the specific form which such activity takes in the curriculum at institutions of higher learning (p. 80). In publishing a volume that—despite its criticality toward German Studies in its current manifestation at North American colleges and universities—still believes that German Studies is a discipline worth reforming, we have to acknowledge that we are contributing and upholding settler futurity as well. Finally, in engaging with a concept and process such as decolonization in our attempt to pursue more equitable and just approaches to teaching and learning in the field of German Studies, this volume “domesticates decolonization,” ostensibly performing “yet another form of settler appropriation” (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 3). We do not do so lightly and with the full understanding that “until stolen land is relinquished, critical consciousness does not translate into action that disrupts settler colonialism” (p. 19). Following Bhambra et al. (2018), however, we firmly believe that “the Western university is a key site through which colonialism – and colonial knowledge in particular – is produced, consecrated, institutionalised and naturalised” (p. 5) and hence is a key site for decolonization. Additionally, we agree that “colonialism (and hence decolonising) cannot be reduced to a historically specific and geographically particular articulation of the colonial project, namely settler-colonialism in the Americas” (p. 5). Within the field of German Studies in the

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

3

United States specifically this means that scholars need to attend to two colonial histories: that of the United States and that of Germany. Both of these histories have remained under-researched, particularly with regard to the colonial legacies that continue to shape our institutions, professional organizations, as well as at the German-speaking nations and cultures we teach. This volume is not focused on decolonization alone, but rather brings together two terms—diversity and decolonization—which, while closely related, are embedded with their distinct etymologies, histories, and scholarly discourses. We want to begin this volume by tracing their pasts as well as outline their current place within Higher Education, Foreign Language Education, and German Studies to mark the ways in which this volume contributes to ongoing discourses and in which it seeks to open new avenues for debates about the future of education, the humanities, and the field of German Studies in particular. Since the assembled chapters of this volume focus on postsecondary German Studies, we will momentarily paint with broad strokes as we consider the history of the term “diversity.” “Diversity,” as a critical concept to describe demographic difference, has developed from an everyday term denoting variety to a more politically charged and even contested term. In the 1970s, diversity referred “specifically to those differences, primarily in race and ethnicity, that have been the basis of exclusion or segregation or differential treatment in public action and private social interaction” (Diversity 2005, n.p.). Over the past decades, the meaning of diversity has expanded in two ways: first, the term came to include most minoritized and marginalized groups including women, members of the LGBTQIA2S+ community, and people with disabilities; second, diversity has come to signify not only the characteristics of a group but also a process dedicated to creating more heterogeneous working and living environments. It is in the spirit of this second definition that the private sector and Higher Education alike have come to champion diversity as part of their strategic values or missions, emphasizing their commitment (genuine or pretend) to broad inclusion. Unfortunately, this increase in diversity-focused efforts in nearly every sphere of public life is accompanied by a strengthening of political movements dedicated to white supremacy in the United States and around the globe.1 The success of these movements as exemplified by the electoral gains 1 For

more information see Garcia-Navarro and Soufan (2019).

4  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

of right-wing and neo-fascist parties in countries like Germany, Austria, Brazil, or Hungary, as well as by the increase of xenophobic, racist, and antisemitic violence highlight that while diversity has been mainstreamed, its basic tenets are not universally accepted and are, in fact, actively opposed by many. Diversity as a category of social justice work in the realm of Higher Education has, moreover, lost some of its prowess over the course of the last two decades. As Damani J. Partridge and Matthew Chin have shown, “different kinds of work are being done under ‘diversity’” (2019, p. 206). The “dominant diversity discourses,” which represent initiatives previously used to critique institutions and advocate for inclusion, have been coopted by the administrative processes of the neoliberal university. This has caused a rift “between individual career goals,” institutional interests, “and a broader commitment to social change” (p. 206). That is, diversity work at universities has been operationalized in the service of protecting institutions. As Sara Ahmed has shown, diversity work indeed “can be a way of maintaining rather than transforming existing organizational values” (emphasis in original 2012, p. 57). In some of its worst iterations, diversity initiatives are used to conceal and indeed reproduce whiteness by a process of “adding color to the white face of the organization,” which only “confirms the whiteness of that face” (emphasis in original, p. 151). Decolonization, similar to diversity, describes a goal and a process at once. The term originally defined the process by which formerly colonized countries reclaimed independence from colonial powers, thereby creating numerous new nation-states. While the majority of these moves toward independence took place in the 1970s, not surprisingly “the aftershocks of decolonization are still widely felt” (Betts 2012, p. 34). One of the reasons for the continued impact of decolonization and arguably colonization is that current ideologies and practices of power, for example capitalism and globalization, as well as institutions which govern our daily lives, for example schools, universities, courts, are still very much rooted “in histories of colonialism” (Asher 2009, pp. 67–68). Furthermore, decolonization is closely intertwined with the theoretical approaches of postmodernism and postcolonialism, which critiqued and developed models to decenter and deconstruct the presumed superiority of Western culture as well as the dominance of Eurocentric perspectives inside and outside the academy (Betts 2012, p. 34). While postcolonialism made important strides toward the inclusion of traditionally excluded

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

5

voices and perspectives, Leela Gandhi in her groundbreaking introduction to Postcolonial Theory (1998) remarks, what postcolonialism fails to recognise is that what counts as ‘marginal’ in relation to the West has often been central and foundational in the nonWest. […] Despite its good intentions, then, postcolonialism continues to render non-Western knowledge and culture as ‘other’ in relation to the normative ‘self’ of Western epistemology and rationality. (pp. ix–x)

Decolonization, as a theoretical approach, then seeks to move beyond inclusion and, instead, toward “challenging the master narrative, centering non-Western ways of knowing and learning” (Parker 2016, p. 164). The desire and need for seeing and thinking about the world in non-Westernized ways has triggered protest movements at institutions of Higher Education around the globe. While a two-day conference in February 2010 in the Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley about “Decolonizing the University: Fulfilling the Dream of the Third World College” is among the first comprehensive scholarly interventions in the twenty-first century that sought to decolonize the institutional setting of the university, the Rhodes Must Fall movement at the University of Cape Town in March 2015 initiated a more widespread response. The student protests at Cape Town originally focused on the removal of the statue of colonial icon and imperialist C.J. Rhodes, but they ultimately ushered in a wave of protests demanding the decolonization of universities throughout South Africa and beyond. Based on their ­experience and work with the protest movement at the University of Cape Town, Shannon Morreira and Kathy Luckett (2018) have developed a set of questions aimed at helping faculty “unearth some of the norms, assumptions and everyday practices that are taken for granted and which may be entangled in the ‘hidden curriculum’” (n.p.). The set of ten questions they introduce ranges from considerations of curriculum design to instructor positionality to assessment and includes questions such as: “What principles, norms, values and worldviews inform your selection of knowledge for your curriculum?,” “How does your curriculum level the playing fields by requiring traditional/white students to acquire the intellectual and cultural resources to function effectively in a plural society?,” and “For whom do you design your curriculum? Who is your ideal, imagined student and what assumptions do you make about their backgrounds, culture, languages, and schooling?”

6  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

(Morreira and Luckett 2018, n.p.). This comprehensive list of questions emphasizes that the aftermaths of colonialism impact every part of the university, from what we teach, how we teach it, and to whom. The most important point here being that the purview of decolonization reaches into the domain of Higher Education. Rhodes Must Fall Oxford was one of the first protest movements in the global north inspired by the events in Cape Town. Starting in the Fall of 2015, a group of students set out to “decolonise the space, the curriculum, and the institutional memory at, and to fight intersectional oppression within, Oxford” (RMF Oxford, n.p.). The protests at Oxford followed on the feet of the UK’s National Student Union’s campaign, “Why is my curriculum so white?,” which in the fall of 2014 demanded that institutions “minimise Euro-centric bias in curriculum design, content and delivery” (studentsunionucl.org). The demands for decolonization both in South Africa and in the UK are triggered by an increasingly diverse student body that takes issue with the century-long lack of representation of some histories and some systems of knowledge in the curriculum as well as the continued influence of colonial pasts shaping university life inside and outside of the classroom. Notably, these movements make an explicit distinction between decolonization and diversity and are particularly critical of their institutions’ efforts toward diversification. As Rhodes Must Fall Oxford argues: “Working towards decolonisation instead of ‘diversification’ leads to the democratisation and transformation we would like to see” (rmfoxford, n.p.). These movements then take issue with the additive approach of diversification that aims to infuse the existing curriculum with previously excluded voices with the assumption that this alone would increase the percentage of the student body represented in the curriculum. However, as Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández (2013) have critiqued, “under the banner of ‘we are all the same because we are different,’ the language of diversity completes the replacement [of indigenous people and scholars], positioning white people as the true diverse subjects, the new natives, and protectors of the value of human difference” (p. 82). Consequently, and very much in line with the demand to remove the Rhodes statues from their respective campuses, these protest movements’ calls for decolonization aim for an institutional commitment to decentering and replacing Western and colonizer narratives with Indigenous epistemologies and the knowledge traditions of marginalized and minoritized groups.

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

7

Imagining how this can be accomplished within Foreign Language Education is immediately challenging given that the field has been historically entwined with nationalists and ethno-nationalist projects and therefore often remains implicated in the corporate interests of “neo-colonial globalism,” which is why it continuously fails to meet the “language and cultural needs of the people subsumed under the euphemism of ‘national interest’” (Macedo 2019, p. 15). The persistent influences of neoliberal forces are currently resurfacing within Foreign Language Education through an “add-on” mentality toward language study that instrumentalizes and reduces languages to “mere resources used not for their cultural value, but for their exchange value” (Kramsch 2019, p. 50). Decolonizing foreign language education then means—among other things—resisting market pressures and corporate thinking that limit language study to its applicability in the workforce. Most importantly, decolonization must target the curriculum first by weakening the “traditional link between standard languages and national cultures” (Kramsch 2019, p. 50) through the uncoupling of languages from their colonial states, a link that has been and remains the cornerstone for the majority of language departments at North American universities. Further, decolonization efforts need to address recruitment, graduate training, and professional development at the departmental and national levels. As Macedo (2019) poignantly asks: “How can the field of foreign language education decolonize itself and, at the same time, justify its vast whiteness as reflected in classrooms, teacher preparation programs, and national and international language teaching organizations” (p. 14)? These spaces are alienating and at times even dangerous for marginalized students and scholars alike and a commitment to diversity and decolonization requires work toward making classrooms, offices, and conferences more equitable, just, and inclusive. Given the projections for a nonwhite majority among college students by 2050 (Hampton and Ratwik 2011, p. vi) in the United States, attending to inclusivity and diversity via decolonization is an ethical obligation and an existential imperative, as we discuss in more detail below.

8  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

2   History of the Field Since the 1970s, German Studies has produced a relatively strong number of reference works that surveyed the field’s history, examined its status on the landscape of contemporary Higher Education, and assessed (frequently even determined) future directions for the field. Each such volume contains the perspectives from prominent representatives in the field. Often authored by colleagues who have been long-term fixtures in German Studies, usually cis white men (although this changed as one surveys the volumes closer to the present), these publications have provided commentary on topics as diverse as the past enrollment crises in German Studies, curricular shifts from literary to cultural studies (among other “turns”), and transitions from a German model of Germanistik to ostensibly a different model of somehow still primarily literary-based German Studies in North America. In their volume Taking Stock of German Studies in the United States: The New Millennium (2015), Rachel J. Halverson and Carol Anne Costabile-Heming provide an extensive overview of these discourses, concluding with a remark that points more to continuities than to discrepancies about the tone and content of previous studies: “the concerns expressed today possess an eerily redundant patina” (p. 2).2 That is, historic trends of fluctuating enrollment issues, coupled with tensions affiliated with the type of instructional work that German Studies should undertake, have yielded similar valuations of the state of the field even if in different constellations over time. In the most recent of such volumes, Paul Michael Lützeler and Peter Höyng remark that despite various trials and tribulations, “the field has become inclusive, diverse, pluralistic, and interdisciplinary” (2018, p. 2). The authors here mean the extensive advocacy work in the past, which has secured a field “welcoming” to various types of scholarly approaches to German Studies difficult to imagine in previous decades: Today, it is impossible to imagine the discipline without including women’s literature, or the critique of the Frankfurt School, or new debates about modernism, or exiled writers and philosophers from Germany or Austria, or minorities and transnational literature, or German film, or new approaches to thinking about and teaching German as a foreign language. (p. 2)

2 For an overview of the history of German Studies in Canada, see the work of John L. Plews and Barbara Schmenk (2013).

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

9

In this assessment, German Studies—in theory—has created a venue for different type of work to take place within the confines of its boundaries: past advocacy work by scholars has secured a place in the curriculum for different types of material previously excluded from the canon and has generated venues respectful of varied methodologies.3 In fact, in the realm of German-Jewish studies, German migration studies, German women’s studies, and German Black diaspora studies more scholarship and curricular advocacy work has taken place in the last three decades than before. The case of women and feminist studies provides an especially vibrant example of how advocates secured interest in and carved out a space for scholarly approaches not sanctioned by the status quo, on the one hand; on the other, German women’s and feminist studies advocated for the work of women scholars themselves, who were systemically excluded from vital structures of influence in the field. Primarily affiliated with the formation and sustained efforts of the Coalition of Women in German (WiG), German women’s and feminist studies boasts a long and complex history. Margaretmary Daley has noted in her history of the organization that WiG’s formation grew out of a lack of venues in which women Germanists could share their work and advocate for feminist approaches to German Studies: “WiG was formed in 1974 by a group of women Germanists who were disaffected with the professional organizations of the day and felt a need for an organization that would provide support for them as women scholars and serve as forum for feminist research” (2001, p. 98). Today’s relatively strong standing of German women’s and feminist studies is grounded in extensive and sustained advocacy work by WiG membership. Notably, WiG’s mission to advance women’s and feminist studies was successful through a number of initiatives, which secured sustained advocacy. The annual WiG conference, the peer-reviewed journal Feminist German Studies (formerly Women in German Yearbook), a longstanding newsletter, and strong ties to partner organizations such as the MLA, the GSA, and the AATG have all created a matrix of influence, which sustains the efforts of the organization. A similar undertaking took place at the GSA and the idea to implement a series of interdisciplinary scholarly networks, which would produce research on various topics that breach 3 For an overview of the history of one of the major journals in German Studies, The German Studies Review, see Amanda Randall (2016).

10  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

the confines of disciplinarily (see Ward 2016, pp. 517–27). Today, these networks facilitate state-of-the-art research on, among other topics, Asian German Studies, Black Diaspora Studies, Queer and Trans Studies as well as lines of inquiry frequently yielding work on and facilitating scholarship by systemically marginalized people. We want here to take a moment and recognize the important work done by the Black German Heritage and Research Association (BGHRA), which has done important work both for the broader diasporic community of Black Germans as well as the scholarly advancement of Black German Studies. Since its inaugural conference in 2011, BGHRA has facilitated scholarly gatherings and has promoted research under the leadership of its president, Rosemarie Peña. Notably, the field of German Studies is ostensibly “open” to diverse topics for inquiry, which yield new insights about social and cultural histories of marginalized people in German-speaking communities throughout the world. There is also evidence that the field perpetually attempted to subvert the tyranny of ethno-nationalist impulses to ascribe scholarly inquiry and teaching to discrete peoples and nations. Nonetheless, German Studies on the whole remains at odds with the promise accompanying the broad semantic field of diversity. Beverly Weber has demonstrated how whiteness informs and indeed structures belonging among members of WiG. Whiteness is, in fact, structurally constitutive of the organization that when individual white members seek to be inclusive, their act of inclusion slips into “benevolent gifting” that is less an act in the service of scholars of color than of “white narcissism” (2016, pp. 191 and 193–94). Weber engages the work of Sara Ahmed to conclude that whiteness “functions in feminist German studies via an expectation that antiracist work by white scholars should result in whites feeling happy, better about themselves” (p. 193). Furthermore, works that survey the history of the field of German Studies, rarely center diversity work, if they mention it at all.4 There are some exceptions. Foremost among these exceptions is the work of Ingeborg Henderson in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1991, Henderson proclaimed that while in the social sciences and humanities at large efforts are well underway to attend to diversity, the field of language education and German in particular are “relative newcomers 4 This volume is an intervention in the scholarly discourse, which centers diversity and decolonization in German Studies. A number of other such scholarly interventions are forthcoming. See, for example the work of Regine Criser and Suzuko Knott (2019).

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

11

to the diversity debate” (Henderson 1991, p. 4). Henderson demonstrated that by 1991 scholarship on diversity and language education had yielded “paucity of publications” (p. 4). A year later, Henderson proclaimed that “diversity is going to be the issue for this decade and beyond, not just in parts of the country but across the nation” (emphasis in original 1992, p. 107). Despite Henderson’s impassionate plea for more attention to diversity in German language and culture studies and the ardent call to reform by her and other scholars, more work remains to be done. As the 2019 “Open Letter to the AATG: A Ten-Point Program of the Diversity, Decolonization, and the German Curriculum (DDGC) Collective” outlines specifically referencing the 1992 “Focus on Diversity” issue of Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German in which Henderson’s work was published, “Nearly 30 years later, and despite much effort undertaken, we find that this future remains announced, but not enacted” (n.p). To center diversity in discussions about the scholarly trends and methods in the field of German Studies means to attend to a steadily growing number of students with backgrounds and statuses systemically disadvantaged by the academy. As Clifton Conrad has shown in his work on US higher education: Between 1980 and 2011, total undergraduate fall enrollment increased by 73 percent, with minority student enrollment increasing by almost 300 percent. Specifically, Hispanic enrollment increased a little over 500 percent, Black student enrollment increased by 165 percent, that of Asian and Pacific Islanders increased by 336 percent, and that of American Indians and Alaska Natives rose by 118 percent. (2015, p. 15)

Despite these strong numbers, institutions of higher learning are only slowly adjusting in affirmative ways that would help diverse students thrive in their courses of study. “Lumped into often misleading groups, minority students often begin their college education having to prove they deserve a place in an American school, in some instances in the explicit presence of racial and ethnic slurs” (Conrad 2015, p. 17). To serve minoritized students from diverse backgrounds, institutions of higher learning have to develop a stronger sensitivity to their personal histories and develop individualized mentoring, advising, and other ­support structures:

12  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ institutions need to understand and value the cultural, social, and educational resources that each student brings to college. The students now coming to American colleges have been socialized in diverse contexts. They cannot be assumed to share common academic preparation, educational habits, or first languages. (p. 18)

In terms of German Studies, the fact that only very few scholars have issued calls to center diversity in discussions about the future of the profession and in attempts to restructure and remodel curricula for the twenty-first century attests to the urgency to reframe these discourses. Admirable studies on the need to reform undergraduate curricula in German have made progress in establishing the centrality of language instruction itself. Lynne Tatlock’s advocacy work is central in this regard. Tatlock has shown how “the multiple pressures of the university can make it easy even for us, even when we know better, to lose sight of language instruction” particularly at times when we know that effectively articulated first- and second-year language sequences are the lifelines of German programs (2010, p. 18). In a related vein, Heidi Byrnes has shown that “collaboration and dialogue are needed as we rethink the relations among language, culture, and adult language acquisition,” presenting through the Georgetown model an effective system by which to develop language proficiency entwined with culture (Byrnes 2012, p. 230). However, without centering diversity and attending to the needs of students structurally excluded from existing educational models any future curricular work is bound to fall short. In this volume, we bring together scholars and practitioners from various institutions of Higher Education, who engage with and center diversity in their critique of and programming for German Studies in the twenty-first century. If, as Henderson pointed out in 1992, “the purpose of studying diversity is ultimately self-critique” then the chapters collected in this volume perform criticality in search of ways to make German Studies more equitable and accessible for students structurally disadvantaged by its curricula and programming (p. 7). In fact, when we founded the scholarly collective DDGC, we sought out a venue in which this disciplinary self-critique can flourish. The goal was to foster a criticality which would propel us forward into a more just and equitable future as pedagogues and professionals seeking to shape more just and equitable classroom experiences in German Studies.

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

13

3  Changing Landscape of German Studies and the Urgency to Reform As we write, we are aware of our positionality vis-à-vis the subject at hand. One of us writes as a white, cishet, female immigrant to the United States and the other as a queer person born into a Muslim family, who has lived as a refugee in Germany. We write from a position of relative privilege as scholars in full-time and long-term employment situations. It is in our discussions about our personal paths into academia and in how we relate to our students and our field that we have come to take on the responsibility to engage critically with questions of how power, privilege, and oppression shape Higher Education. We personally came to recognize that, as Clifton Conrad persuasively demonstrated, “the difficulty in providing every adult in a diverse nation with equal access to educational opportunities does not involve convincing diverse students to come to college. They are coming” (Conrad 2015, p. 19). Because a wide spectrum of student backgrounds, abilities, and statuses already comprises the existing student body at our universities and colleges, Conrad argues that our task as educators “lies in providing students with access to institutions that understand and value their experiences and resources, challenging them with the obligation and the opportunity to learn what really matters to them” (p. 19). The contributors to this volume are concerned about the stakes of diversification in relation to German Studies. They offer insight about how we can continue to shape access to German Studies for an already diverse and increasingly diversifying student body. Collectively, the individual chapters do not take for granted that the field is accessible for everyone. This type of thinking—“everyone is welcome and no one is turned away”—usually fails to attend to the needs of structurally and historically marginalized and excluded learners by presuming that their needs should correspond to the needs of an idealized learner used as heuristic to devise lessons, modules, courses, and curricula in German language and culture studies. That is, the generic guidelines used to articulate and implement curricula frequently pretend that their status as generic suffices in reaching all learners equally. At the core, the contributors to this volume reject these and other assumptions about learners and curriculum formation, providing theoretical and practical guidelines, which reflect what an equitable and just curriculum could be.

14  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

Early advocates for diversity initiatives in German Studies, including Henderson, have articulated the need to attend to diversification trends in higher education if German Studies hopes to maintain student enrollment. Such work has shown how the enrollment trends in German Studies—particularly during times when enrollments are falling—could be alleviated if German Studies advocates could find ways to articulate the relevance of German Studies to diverse groups of students. For instance, Henderson, writing about the experience of students of color, states that “students of color perceive a degree of relevancy and immediacy in the social sciences that seems to be absent in the study of German” (1991, p. 6). The culture of whiteness, which defines staffing demographics, the student body which is generally drawn to German Studies, and the formation of the curriculum itself, offers little to no appeal in its own terms when it comes to serving students of color. We would like to foreground and complicate the two trends in early advocacy work to diversify German Studies: (1) the question of enrollment and (2) the question of relevance. According to a 2016 MLA report on enrollment patterns in postsecondary language programs in the United States, “enrollments in languages other than English decreased by 9.2%” between 2013 and 2016 (Chang 2018, n.p.). The enrollment decrease in postsecondary education follows a downward pattern, which had been exasperated by the 2008 financial crisis. One effect of the stark enrollment decline is the defunding and abolishment of language programs. Between 2009 and 2013, 651 language programs were closed according to another MLA report (Johnson 2019, n.p.). 68 of those closed programs were German language and culture programs. What is important to note is that enrollment trends have fluctuated and the current is by no means the only enrollment crisis in German Studies. The frequently cited polemic about the need to reform German Studies by John van Cleve and A. Leslie Wilson (1993) has shown the steady decline in enrollments in German throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Peter Uwe Hohendahl (1998) has studied the shifting post-cold-war political climate in terms of the reconfiguration of higher education toward a neoliberal market-orientated structure and the decline in German enrollments this shift brought about. At each juncture or critical moment of enrollment difficulties, scholars have attended to a number of methods by which to reinvigorate German Studies in ways that would increase student numbers.

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

15

Scholarship in the early 1990s began considering in which ways an attention to diversity could attend to the growing enrollment issues in German Studies. George F. Peters (1992) makes the link explicit when he notes, “the profession must make a concerted effort to improve its record of minority recruitment and retention for reasons of selfpreservation” (p. vii). But even Peters, as well as Henderson, whose article appeared alongside Peters’s work in a 1992 issue of Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German dedicated to diversity in German Studies, signals the problematic gesture to “diversify” for the sake of enrollments alone. Recruitment for the sake of numbers, he writes, “is not […] the most compelling reason to keep diversity a top priority on the national agenda of the AATG” (p. vii). Peters gestures toward an ethical commitment to diversification and the implications of recruiting and devising curricula to serve diverse student learners: It is our obligation not only to make our classrooms prejudice and bias free, but to make them a hospitable place for all students. Promoting diversity means a conscious effort on the part of German teachers at all levels and all types of institutions to create a welcoming, nurturing, and supportive atmosphere for learners who may not fit the traditional image. (pp. vii–viii)

The impetus driving the curricular and programming change for which Peters and also Henderson advocated in the early 1990s was one devised to, first and foremost, help serve students and their learning. That is, the pattern of enrollment decline is formidable, for sure, but turning to students, who have been historically and systemically excluded and/or disadvantaged by German Studies curricula, in order to boost enrollment numbers is wrong. Both Henderson and Peters discuss relevancy as an important dimension of recruitment; that is, they suggest that students of color, for instance, are hard-pressed to identify relevancy in German on their own. Beyond recruitment, however, the question of relevancy is a potent one. At the core, the question of relevancy touches upon canon discourses. Whose work is included on our reading lists and to what end? Whose work is excluded? In her chapter in this volume, Priscilla Layne pursues this question head-on, showing how a transnational, multimedia, and multi-perspectival focus on Black German cultural history in a freshmen seminar taught in English performs the work of relevancy for Black students.

16  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

We foreground the work of Henderson and Peters because we believe there are important lessons to be learned from their work in the 1990s. Their early scholarship and advocacy work has laid the groundwork for curricular and program revision initiatives, which direct us to think more seriously about how our curricular serve nonprivileged learners and implore us to act when we take note that our curricula are problematic. For instance, Henderson has already in 1992 suggested the dangerous effects of the persistent whiteness characteristic of our field. Her concerns transgress mere curricular work. Students of color, she notes, “see German faculties primarily composed of Caucasians and, given the general importance of role models for minority students, we appear to have little to offer” (p. 6). While curricular work can attend to some of the issues minoritized students face in the academy and particularly in German Studies, deeper structural issues pertaining to the field’s ­whiteness will persist. At this point, we would like to turn again to the work on whiteness by Beverly Weber. In her writing about white feminism, Weber notes that the recipients of critique have tall expectations from the person issuing critique. Such expectations can be stifling in that they presume that easy solutions exist for problems raised. What Weber states she hopes to do instead of providing easy solutions for structural issues is to foster and demand a “persistent questioning about the workings of race” in an environment wherein such inquiry was marginalized if it ever took place (2016, p. 33). The shape of this persistence is fluid. As Weber notes, “this questioning might even be a kind of ongoing troublemaking, one that is necessarily uncomfortable for those who enjoy privilege” (p. 33). While the chapters in this volume present theoretical and practical ideas about what equitable and just German Studies postsecondary education should look like, at the core all contributors are eager to challenge us all to continue questioning, continue troublemaking and calling out ill practices, as well as calling key stakeholders into conversations about how to improve how we design and teach our courses.

4  Overview of the Volume In this volume we are bringing together German Studies scholars and practitioners at various stages in their career and working in institutional contexts ranging from research universities to small liberal arts colleges as well as regional comprehensive universities. Our aim is

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

17

twofold: (1) to examine German Studies curricular models against the backdrop of diversity and decolonization discourses and (2) to offer curricular models, which help facilitate criticality in the spirit of diversity and decolonization discourses by connecting German Studies with critical race, gender, sexuality, migration, Indigenous, and disability studies. We seek to ask questions about our discipline’s ability to speak to various lived experiences and to help equip learners with critical tools to dismantle oppressive forces of our present times. The volume grew out of the scholarly collective DDGC, which we formed in 2016. Following the first biennial conference hosted by this collective March 2–5, 2017 at the University of North Carolina, Asheville, the idea and momentum formed for a larger project. The motivation was to make some of the conversations held at the conference and those that emerged since available to all our colleagues in German Studies. The project is firmly anchored in the scholarly and pedagogical work of North American professionals. The majority of the contributors to the volume work and/or have received their academic training at US institutions. While this might pose some limitations in terms of the immediate applicability of some of the models presented in the volume, we hope that the critical discussions the chapters generate would be productive for German Studies professionals internationally. Ashwin Manthripragada and Emina Mušanović in “Accounting for Our Settler Colonialism: Towards an Unsettled German Studies in the United States” revisit in depth the potentially incommensurable discourses of decolonization and diversity and the tensions between the decolonization work as it is imagined and applied in this volume and its roots in Decolonial Studies. In outlining the challenges that Decolonial Studies pose to German Studies specifically, they remind us of our discipline’s contribution to the continued erasure of Indigenous life, a truth every German Studies scholar needs to face. In “Habits of Mind, Habits of Heart: Cultivating Humanity Through a Decolonized German Studies Curriculum,” Amanda Randall engages the monolithic and exclusionary image of “Germanness” that still dominates a majority of German Studies curricula. Her chapter provides a roadmap toward a diversified and decolonized curriculum that attends to the internal diversity and complexity of German-speaking societies. Openly reflecting the challenges and barriers for these endeavors, Randall offers a nuanced and thoughtful discussion about the need for decolonization within German Studies and the humanities at large and clearly outlines what is at stake

18  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

for students and scholars alike. Magda Tarnawska-Senel offers a way to rethink language curricula by introducing a social justice framework. In “Social Justice in the Language Curriculum: Interrogating the Goals and Outcomes of Language Education in College,” Tarnawska-Senel emphasizes the importance of connecting language teaching to sociopolitical realities on both a broader global as well as a specifically local level. She advocates for engaging in a deliberately political teaching and introduces an expanded model of ACTFL’s 5 Cs framework, highlighting the importance of criticality, complexity, contexts, connectedness as well as concern, care, and compassion for effective language teaching anchored in cultural studies and critical pedagogy. Priscilla Layne’s chapter, “Decolonizing German Studies While Dissecting Race in the American Classroom,” showcases her work in creating a first-year seminar as a site of decolonization. The class becomes a space where students can recover marginalized narratives, decenter whiteness, and encounter multiple perspectives on Germany and on Black cultures. Echoing Layne’s commitment to unveiling the subjective impressions that continue to be disguised as objective truths, Evan Torner’s chapter titled “Documents of Colonialism and Racial Theorizing in the German Classroom” addresses the white supremacist undercurrent of German Studies and introduces critical race theory approaches as a way to unpack the racial discourse as it plays out in central texts of German intellectual and cultural history. Outlining a seminar on race theory and the modern German state, Torner shares pedagogy and curriculum recommendations for teaching the German invention of “race,” making a passionate plea for combating white supremacy in German Studies. Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker’s chapter, “Decolonizing the Mental Lexicon: Critical Whiteness Studies Perspectives in the Language Classroom,” introduces a curricular unit on foreignness centered on reflectivity and positionality for the intermediate or advanced German classroom. Their proposed way of decolonizing German Studies is focused on connecting the discipline and the field of second language acquisition to Critical Whiteness Studies. Beate Brunow and Britt Newman approach decolonization through the iterative and reflective process of intercultural learning. Their chapter, “A Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence: Scaffolding the Shift from Culture-Specific to Culture-General,” proposes a framework for the longitudinal integration of intercultural competence throughout the curriculum, paying particular attention to the constructedness of

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

19

identities and the importance of reflection and self-awareness for student success in the language classroom. In a related vein, Janice McGregor’s chapter titled “Study Abroad Otherwise” interrogates the persistent ideological structure of monolingualism and how it impacts study abroad experience, especially given the multilingual realities of language learners in a study abroad context. Her chapter examines the ways in which foreign language education and German Studies are steeped in the recirculation of whiteness and proposes a reorientation to German language education and study abroad as an experience that disturbs and unsettles prevailing discourses about language, culture, and race. Adrienne Merritt’s chapter focuses specifically on the inclusion of students of color in the US German classroom and how the needs of marginalized students remain largely unmet by the field. Her chapter, “A Question of Inclusion: Intercultural Competence, Systematic Racism, and the North American German Classroom,” analyzes the impact of the intercultural method on marginalized students, particularly when German culture is essentialized and portrayed in a stereotypical fashion. These ideas are expanded in Brenna Reinhart Byrd’s chapter, “Supporting Graduate Students of Color in German Studies: A Syllabus.” Byrd reviews research on the psychological effects of marginalization, racial microaggression, and stereotype threat as well as their negative impact on success for graduate students of color. Her chapter offers a concrete suggestion on how best to support minoritized graduate students not only in predominantly white fields like German Studies but also in academia at large. Focusing on classroom inclusivity, Renata Fuchs’s chapter titled “Digital Media Network Projects: Classroom Inclusivity Through a Symphilosophical Approach” introduces a course model that merges literary research and contemporaneous pedagogy. Fuchs approaches decolonizing literature and language courses through the Romantic concept of symphilosophy. She makes an argument for German Romantic philosophy as relevant and important tool for pedagogical interventions related to decolonization and diversity, imagining the Romantic salon as a decolonizing space that can be re-envisioned through digital and social media project. Petra Watzke approaches the concept of classroom inclusivity from the perspective of disability studies. Her chapter, “Disrupting the Norm: Disability, Access, and Inclusion in the German Language Classroom,” proposes an intervention into traditional language pedagogy by examining ways in which communicative language teaching

20  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ

frequently fails to take into account the spectra of ability statuses among learners and educators. Watzke exposes the general barriers to inclusion and equity that exist in higher education and introduces ways in which we can rethink language education to move toward the inclusion of students and faculty of varying abilities in a productive learning community. In “Multidirectional Memory as Decolonial Pedagogical Practice in German Studies,” Lauren Hansen argues for a decolonial mission at the core of multidirectional memory and introduces a course on “Transnational Perspective on Holocaust Memory.” This course centers student self-assessment of personal narratives in the context of national, international, and multidirectional narratives, fostering deep criticality conducive to decolonial thinking. Angineh Djavadghazaryan engages the question of how to create an inclusive environment in a classroom that is centered around a grammatically gendered language. Her chapter, “‘Please Don’t Gender Me!’ Strategies for Inclusive Language Instruction in a Gender-Diverse Campus Community,” outlines concrete approaches for creating a curriculum that tends to the normative language patterns of German while simultaneously establishing a learning environment attuned to the needs of nonconforming students. Daniela Müller addresses the issues of decolonization and diversity from an Australian perspective. Her chapter, “Intersectionality and Notions of Diversity in the Internationalized German Studies Program at the University of Melbourne,” focuses on intersectionality and introduces teaching strategies that have proven to be successful in addressing diversity-related challenges. The volume closes with a chapter in the form of a letter: in “Dear Incoming Graduate Student Colleague,” David Gramling captures a composite of hopes, experiences, caveats, and uncertainties that are pertinent to all incoming graduate students yet missing from the majority of preparatory materials for future educators in German Studies.

References Ahmed, Sara. 2012. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press. Asher, Nina. 2009. “Decolonization and Education: Locating Pedagogy and Self at the Interstices in Global Times.” Counterpoints 369: 67–77. Betts, Raymond. 2012. “Decolonization: A Brief History of the Word.” In Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s–1970s, edited by Els Bogaerts and Remco Raben, 23–37. Amsterdam: Brill.

1  INTRODUCTION: DIVERSITY AND DECOLONIZATION … 

21

Bhambra, Gurminder K., Dalia Gebrial, and Kerem Nişancıoğlu. 2018. “Introduction: Decolonising the University?” In Decolonising the University, edited by Gurminder K. Bhambra, Dalia Gebrial, and Kerem Nişancıoğlu, 1–15. London: Pluto Press. Byrnes, Heidi. 2012. “The Cultural Turn in Foreign Language Departments: Challenge and Opportunity.” Profession, 216–32. Chang, Anna. 2018. “New MLA Report Documents Trends in Language Study.” MLA Commons: News from the MLA, February 26. Accessed 29 May 2019. https://news.mla.hcommons.org/2018/02/26/new-mla-report-documentstrends-in-language-study/. Conrad, Clifton. 2015. Educating a Diverse Nation: Lessons from MinorityServing Institutions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Criser, Regine, and Suzuko Knott. 2019. “Decolonizing the Curriculum.” Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 52 (2): 151–60. Daley, Margaretmary. 2001. “Feminist Professionalism: A Brief, Critical History of the Coalition of Women in German.” In Teaching German in TwentiethCentury America, edited by David P. Bensler, Craig W. Nickisch, and Cora Lee Nollendorfs, 98–108. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. “Diversity.” 2005. New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Accessed 24 May 2019. www.encyclopedia.com. Gandhi, Leela. 1998. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press. Garcia-Navarro, Lulu, and Ali Soufan. 2019. “White Supremacy and Terrorism.” NPR Weekend Edition, March 17. Accessed 31 May 2019. https://www.npr. org/2019/03/17/704209660/white-supremacy-and-terrorism. Halverson, Rachel J., and Carol Anne Costabilie-Heming. 2015. “Introduction: Challenges and Opportunities for the Study of German.” In Taking Stock of German Studies in the United States: The New Millennium, edited by Rachel J. Halverson and Carol Anne Costabilie-Heming, 1–15. Rochester: Camden House. Hampton, Margaret, and Anita Ratwik. 2011. “AATG Alle Lernen Deutsch Committee Twenty Year Anniversary.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 44 (2 Fall): vi. Henderson, Ingeborg. 1991. “Addressing Diversity: A Call for Action.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 24 (1): 4–9. ———. 1992. “Preparing for Diversity: From Administrative Planning to TA Training.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 25 (2): 107–15. Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. 1998. “The Fate of German Studies After the End of the Cold War.” ADFL Bulletin 29 (2): 18–21. Johnson, Steven. 2019. “Colleges Lose a ‘Stunning’ 651 Foreign-Language Programs in 3 Years.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 22. Accessed 29 May 2019. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Losea-Stunning-/245526.

22  R. CRISER AND E. MALAKAJ Kramsch, Claire. 2019. “Between Globalization and Decolonization: Foreign Languages in the Cross-Fire.” In Decolonizing Foreign Language Education: The Misteaching English and Other Colonial Languages, edited by Donaldo Macedo, 50–72. New York: Routledge. Lützeler, Paul Michael, and Peter Höyng. 2018. “Introduction.” In Transatlantic German Studies: Testimonies to the Profession, edited by Paul Michael Lützeler and Peter Höyng, 1–4. Rochester: Camden House. Macedo, Donaldo. 2019. “Rupturing the Yoke of Colonialism in Foreign Language Education: An Introduction.” In Decolonizing Foreign Language Education: The Misteaching English and Other Colonial Languages, edited by Donaldo Macedo, 1–49. New York: Routledge. Morreira, Shannon, and Kathy Luckett. 2018. “Questions Academics Can Ask to Decolonise Their Classrooms.” The Conversation, October 17. Accessed 24 May 2019. “Open Letter to the AATG: A Ten-Point Program of the Diversity, Decolonization, and the German Curriculum (DDGC) Collective.” The DDGC Blog, edited by Regine Criser and Ervin Malakaj, April 16, 2019. Accessed 10 May 2019. Parker, Kendra R. 2016. “Introduction: Decolonizing the University: A Battle for the African Mind.” CLA Journal 60 (2): 164–71. Partridge, Damani J., and Matthew Chin. 2019. “Interrogating the Histories and Futures of ‘Diversity’: Transnational Perspectives.” Public Culture 31 (2): 197–214. Peters, George F. 1992. “Editor’s Corner.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 25 (2): vii–viii. Plews, John L., and Barbara Schmenk. 2013. “Traditions and Transitions: On Broadening the Visibility and Scope of Curriculum Inquiry for German Studies.” In Traditions and Transitions: Curricula for German Studies, edited by John L. Plews and Barbara Schmenk, 1–21. Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press. Randall, Amanda Z. 2016. “From Multidisciplinary to Transdisciplinary: On the History of German Studies Review, 1978–2015.” German Studies Review 39 (3): 629–43. Tatlock, Lynne. 2010. “German in the Changing Landscape of Postsecondary Education.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 43 (1): 11–21. Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40. Tuck, Eve, and Rubén A. Gaztambide-Fernández. 2013. “Curriculum, Replacement, and Settler Futurity.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 29 (1): 72–89. van Cleve, John, and A. Leslie Wilson. 1993. Remarks on the Needed Reform of German Studies in the United States. Columbia, SC: Camden House. Ward, Janet. 2016. “Interdisciplinarity, German Studies, and the Humanities.” German Studies Review 39 (3): 517–27. Weber, Beverly. 2016. “Whiteness, WiG, and Talking About Race.” Women in German Yearbook 32: 189–202.

CHAPTER 2

Accounting for Our Settler Colonialism: Toward an Unsettled German Studies in the United States Ashwin Manthripragada and Emina Mušanović

The title of this volume opens up the question of what it means to be a scholar of German Studies in North America, still occupied territories, and, moreover, of what it means to do so as settler colonialists.1 Accommodating both decolonization and diversity in reshaping German Studies brings together two potentially incommensurable discourses. A chasm opens up when decolonization is first, repeatedly taken up metaphorically as a “decolonization of the mind,” and second, made commensurate with diversity frameworks. Both impulses in the decol­ onization of German Studies appear to be at odds with Decolonial 1 Patrick Wolfe defines “settler colonialism [as] an inclusive, land-centred project that coordinates a comprehensive range of agencies, from the metropolitan centre to the frontier encampment, with a view to eliminating Indigenous societies” (Wolfe 2006, p. 393).

A. Manthripragada (*)  Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Mušanović  Berkeley, CA, USA © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_2

23

24  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ

Studies. In the following, we will, at first, map out the conflict between decolonization as “decolonization of the mind” and decolonization as theorized by Indigenous Decolonial scholars, specifically those hitherto largely neglected in German Studies. We then engage with challenges Decolonial Studies pose to German Studies specifically and, finally, examine practices in our field that contribute to the continued erasure of Indigenous life. Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, leading Decolonial scholars, argue against applying decolonization as a metaphor, that is, using “an approximation of other experiences of oppression [as] a swappable term for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools” (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 3). To decolonize, for Tuck and Yang, unambiguously means to “[bring] about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life” (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 21). In their influential essay, “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” (2012), Tuck and Yang include among their list of settler colonialists: immigrants, descendants of slaves, refugees, migrant laborers; in short, anyone who arrives with and after the first settler colonialists. However, the communities that make up this list, along with Indigenous populations, constitute, as it is commonly understood, the diversity of contemporary North America. Critical approaches to diversity, the other prominent task of this edited volume, seek to address the uneven distribution of power. But, according to Tuck and Yang, this critical approach to diversity, based on “the promise of integration and civil rights is [itself] predicated on securing a share of a settler-appropriated wealth” (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 7). Critical approaches to diversity seek to disrupt the uneven distribution of power, but do so by “[redistributing] Native land/life as common-wealth,” where decolonization means that “all land is repatriated and all settlers become landless” (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 27). In the following, we critically engage with the premises sketched above and ask how to accept the charge of decolonization: unsettle ourselves, unsettle German Studies as practiced in the United States, and, by extension, unsettle the institutions that house it. It means concurrently contributing to two—for many Decolonial scholars—diametrically opposed or rather incommensurable projects: the “decolonizing framework [that] prioritizes Indigenous sovereignty and futurity” and “human and civil rights social justice projects” (Rowe and Tuck 2017, p. 8). This eventually unworkable dichotomy does not emerge from recourse to a “hierarchy of oppression,” to evoke Audre Lorde, but from diverging paths to liberation and different understandings of migration and its

2  ACCOUNTING FOR OUR SETTLER COLONIALISM … 

25

relation to colonialism. Namely, for Indigenous populations, according to Tuck and Yang, oppression would not end even in some utopia in which equality and equity have been unambiguously and irrevocably secured; it can only end with the recovery of Indigenous sovereignty and the coeval termination of settler sovereignty and settler property rights. To decolonize social justice/diversity frameworks, one must commit “to social change with a specific material politics of Indigenous sovereignty, land, and relationships” (Tuhiwai et al. 2019, p. xv). Without such a commitment, the work of decolonization is thus necessarily one of limited collaboration and inevitable antagonisms—of “contingent coalitions” (Rowe and Tuck 2017, p. 8). It demands, in the least, the recognition of how one’s positionality may inform one’s limits in the investment in decolonization. That is, at some point, if not immediately, settler colonialists must divest themselves from futurist visions in which they remain settler colonialists and in which the relation to land continues to be determined via property rights. Equity utopias that figure liberation in terms of equal access to existing resources or via the equitable redistribution of colonial (settler) wealth are incompatible with decolonization. The decolonization of German Studies as it exists in the United States must confront these limits even if it ultimately cannot overcome them. Our cautious entry into this essay is predicated on the weighty recognition that, although, as Sium et al. (2012) write, “there is no escaping complicity within a settler colonial state, especially for those of us who have settled here,” we must nonetheless engage in some form of action and/or resistance to the colonial, oppressive structuring of being (p. iii). But what form can and should decolonial action take from within the very “institution that helped draw up the first blueprints of colonization, both here and abroad? […] Is it possible to decolonize institutions of colonial power (such as the academy, government, etc.), but, further, is it possible to decolonize through them?” (Sium et al. 2012, p. iii). We engage with specific discourses of decolonization in this chapter because they pose an unanswered challenge to decolonization as a diversity framework in German Studies. This is certainly not the only decolonization discourse in Decolonial/Indigenous Studies, but it is one that has not, to our knowledge, been broadly taken up in endeavors to decolonize German Studies. Finally, we ask ourselves what contribution we— two scholars of immigrant background, a former refugee and a person of color, both born outside of the United States, both generally skeptical of border policing, (ethno)nationalisms, and hostility toward migration— can make to this critical conversation.

26  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ

1  Unsettling Ties Anti-colonial approaches to German Studies—scholarship opposed to colonial practices—in as far as they are exclusively focused on the German context, tend to be concerned with colonial legacies. That is, they are concerned with decolonizing institutions in the context of a postcolonial Germany. For the most part, this means operating from a reality in which territorial colonialism is perceived as a thing of the past and thereby engaging with postcolonial and/or neocolonial conditions. In other words, such critiques turn toward the still injurious legacies of past German territorial colonial history interrogating the persisting ­ethno-nationalist features of the field; inequity broadly understood or, specifically, systemic racism and discrimination against racialized minorities; exclusion on the basis of gender, sexuality, disability, socioeconomic background prevalent in German institutions; and the present-day ­escalation of anti-immigrant sentiment and entry of Islamophobic and xenophobic political parties into the governing bodies. However, when scholars address colonialism from within the United States they are operating from a fundamentally different colonial reality. Here, territorial colonialism is still ongoing. Therefore, it is not enough to engage in critiques of colonial legacies. Tuck and Yang (2012) diagnose this approach as an “anti-colonial turn towards the transnational” that “sometimes [involves] ignoring the settler colonial context where one resides and how that inhabitation is implicated in settler colonialism, in order to establish ‘global’ solidarities that presumably suffer fewer complicities and complications” (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 29). Anti-colonial approaches that ignore colonial realities of the context ­ from which they emerge, lack crucial self-reflexivity and avoid facing the “the monster in the mirror” (Roy 2008). In the best-case scenario, when these approaches do include First Nations histories, they tend to inadvertently “ambiguate” them with “Third World migrants,” thus “writing […] Third World decolonizations […] upon Native land” (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 29). An already occupied, settled land is once more occupied with narratives of liberation that preclude the liberation of disinherited First Nations. We are by no means vanguards in bringing the challenges of decolonization into the field, nor are we scholars of Indigenous Studies. The conversation has been going on for some time now, with, for example, an entire issue of Postcolonial Studies dedicated to the decolonization

2  ACCOUNTING FOR OUR SETTLER COLONIALISM … 

27

of German theory in 2006. However critical, these essays, for the most part, remain grounded in the German national, territorial context—an ostensibly postcolonial context. At the same time, the fact that German Studies, as conducted in the United States, unfolds in a still colonized space, by scholars who themselves are, predominantly, settler ­colonialists, remains largely unaddressed. Beyond Matthew P. Fitzpatrick’s “Colonialism, Postcolonialism, and Decolonization,” no other (as far as we are aware) published essay confronts decolonization of German Studies through the framework outlined by Tuck and Yang or other Decolonial/Indigenous Studies scholars cited here. The assumption that colonization is a thing of the past, and that the work of decolonization of institutions and minds can therefore now commence in an already decolonized space, is a commonly present error. In as far as we in German Studies are engaging with former German colonies and Germany as a colonial power (outside of the context of the United States), we are engaging with an officially though not necessarily effectively decolonized context. However, as long as this work is generated by settler colonialists from within colonial institutions situated on still colonized lands, it must simultaneously engage with the still unfolding colonialism that inevitably grounds them/us and their/our research. Although undeniably integral to the decolonization of the field overall, rarely have these anti-colonial projects rooted in the German context morphed into the more unsettling task of confronting the occupation of colonized grounds. Fitzpatrick sketches this troubling discrepancy: Following Tuck and Yang, shifting toward decolonization as an analytical paradigm cannot—for nonindigenous researchers critically engaging with the colonial past while living in the Americas, New Zealand, Israel, and Australia (territories where indigenous people have been dispossessed)— merely be a theoretical position adopted when dealing with the history of Germany a century ago. Rather, it also entails a far more demanding commitment to recognize and reject the historical legacies of settler colonialism and its normalization by successor states as fundamentally illegitimate. (2018, p. 89)

However, when we heed this critique and double the gesture to c­ oncurrently ground our field in the US institution and thereby in an ongoing colonialist reality and in the colonialist legacies of a postcolonial German context, we must confront the diverging perspectives

28  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ

on immigration in these two critical frameworks. After all, immigrant rights and transnational solidarity that orient anti-colonial German Studies are problematized by Decolonial scholars. From the perspective of Decolonial Studies, immigrants to the United States are settling on still colonized land and are thereby complicit in and, to varying degrees, beneficiaries of the power of the colonizing state. Without engaging the apparent incommensurability that is, in the case of German Studies, most pronounced in the framing of immigration, we run danger of equivocation. Vocalizing a ‘muliticultural’ approach to oppressions, or remaining silent on settler colonialism while talking about colonialisms, or tacking on a gesture towards Indigenous people without addressing Indigenous ­sovereignty or rights, or forwarding a thesis on decolonization without regard to unsettling/deoccupying land, are equivocations. That is, […] ambiguously [avoiding] engaging with settler colonialism; [remaining] ambivalent about minority / people of color / colonized Others as settlers; [remaining] cryptic about Indigenous land rights in spaces inhabited by people of color. (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 19)

One cannot navigate this field of injurious equivocations via an anti-colonial framework alone, especially without addressing its most ­ fundamental discord with decolonial aims. Namely, without a critical disentangling of seemingly diametrically opposed discourses on immigration/migration, a deep misunderstanding might be written into the foundations of a German Studies oriented toward decolonization, thus setting it up for failure on both anti-colonial and decolonial accounts. The danger resides in the potential to legitimize German and Austrian right-wing extremist (ongoing and historical) appropriative claims of indigeneity and exclusive territorial belonging for “ethnically” German and Austrian communities. This would mean inadvertently participating in framing immigrant populations, including people of color, and racialized minorities, as the settler colonialist analog on German ground whose claim to belonging is ultimately illegitimate. Scholars in our field concurrently dedicated to decolonization in the context of the United States and anti-colonialism in the German context, pushing beyond the kind of critical labor deemed “metaphoric” by Tuck and Yang, would either have to accept the indigenous/migrant opposition; or establish critical, nuanced distinctions between immigration to Germany, a

2  ACCOUNTING FOR OUR SETTLER COLONIALISM … 

29

sovereign nation state, and the immigration to or settling of occupied US territories; or pursue anti-colonization through theoretical frameworks that do not see migration and colonization as inherently linked. Decolonial scholars conceive of the state (United States) as a colonizing occupier of Indigenous territory. All migration, whether sanctioned or not, is in service to the settler state. Thus, all non-Indigenous populations are colonizers. Migration to German-speaking states, however, is neither backed by the power of another sovereign state, nor constitutes a settling on colonized lands. As such, the two—immigration to the United States and immigration to German-speaking states—are by no means analog. The discourse of settler colonialism is not transposable onto immigrants or racialized minorities in German-speaking states. Nevertheless, the potential to conflate the two contexts and construe— within the German-speaking context—“ethnic” Germans as indigenous with claim to legitimate, authentic belonging, and, conversely, migrant and racialized populations as illegitimate settlers, remains. Such essentialization of culture and its entanglement with territorial belonging is bread and butter of the racist, anti-immigrant discourses in Germanspeaking Europe. Historically, within the German context specifically, Nazi propaganda relied on the colonial racialization of Indigenous tribes in the Americas to, in return, “[assert] the image of Germans as an original indigenous people who were distinct from other Europeans” (Usbeck 2013, p. 46). That is, the colonial racialization of Indigenous populations via pseudoscientific race theories that fueled genocide across continents, justified slavery, and brought about the Holocaust, was deployed to legitimize claims of exclusive territorial belonging through an imagined Germanic indigeneity. The racialized indigenization of Germans served to support German claim to land and territorial expansion, while the racialization of Indigenous populations in the United States subtended the logic of the elimination of First Nations peoples. Amidst the resurgence of rightwing extremism the promotion of Germanic indigeneity remains a powerful vehicle for the circulation of claims of racial and cultural superiority and exclusive territorial entitlement. In Germany, there is a history of the right-wing extremist mobilization of colonial, racialized “popular tropes of Indian imagery” to “portray Germans as the Indians of Europe and to present” white ethno-nationalism “as the political and spiritual manifestation of natural law” (Usbeck 2013, p. 46). The racialized c­ ategory of indigeneity at work in ethno-nationalisms is, of course, not one

30  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ

appropriated from First Nations peoples but a category imposed on First Nations peoples with lethal force. Indigeneity as a category emerged with the arrival of colonizing forces. The notion of racial purity made into a marker of indigeneity, moreover, is deeply entangled with western imperialism and the rise of modern nation-states. Tribal belonging, prior to the colonial dispossession and genocide, on the other hand, did not follow this imposed, genocidal “organizing grammar of race” (Wolfe 2006). The indigeneity invoked by Nazis and now again by modern ­ethno-nationalists operates with the very same Western, colonial logics of genocide. What we are getting at here is another incompatibility between anti-colonial German Studies and decolonization, the resolution of which hinges, in part, on questions of Indigeneity and migration that cannot be answered under the totalizing conditions of the persisting colonial occupation. As long as the colonial state exists, it will force the racialization of Indigeneity. The linking of Indigeneity and race, even the category of Indigeneity alone, is a colonial import. As Kim TallBear writes, the colonial and still “dominant U.S. understandings of race, kinship, history, and Native American identity set the ground upon which tribal and First Nations attempt to govern their citizenries and ­territories” (2013, p. 9). In other words, it is still the “dominant society and its legal apparatus defining identity as a right of birth that forces indigenous people to refer to descent or even genetics in order to have a chance to win back part of what has been lost through colonisation” (Gausset et al. 2011, p. 138). Here, however, a major problem for German Studies, is brought to fore when, “Land, a key means of production and bases of life, becomes territorialized” and, consequently “racialized or ethnicized” (Sharma 2017, p. 225). The work against the resurgence of the nationalist, essentialized linkage between culture and territory—“blood” and “soil” as it were—is a crucial feature of German Studies. The clash between the efforts of Kanak Attak and Karawane described by Fatima El-Tayeb in European Others: Queering Ethnicity in Postnational Europe exemplifies this tension within the contemporary German-speaking context. Kanak Attak, a collective of second-generation activists, “[refuses] to justify migrants and minorities’ presence in Europe, [claims] the right to unrestricted movement for everyone and [rejects] regulatory frameworks like refugee policies that leave the right to grant access with Western nations” (El-Tayeb 2011, p. 147). Karawane, a refugee rights organization,

2  ACCOUNTING FOR OUR SETTLER COLONIALISM … 

31

emphasizes the “ongoing colonization of the Global South as the reason for the very presence of migrants in the West” (El-Tayeb 2011, p. 155). As El-Tayeb further elaborates, even the slogan of Karawane “‘We are here because you destroy our countries’ expresses a sentiment diametrically opposed to Kanak Attak’s ‘we are already among you, deal with it’” (El-Tayeb 2011, p. 155). The complex conflict between the two camps hinges, in part, on Kanak Attak’s “absolutist” rejection of essentialism, including Karawane’s “strategic essentialism” (El-Tayeb 2011, p. 155). Karawane’s identification of colonialism as the root cause of migration implies that in fact belonging and territory are inherently linked. We therefore bring in the example above to highlight the fact that the problem of strategic essentialism is already part of the German-speaking context and does not only emerge when Indigenous Studies scholarship and demands for repatriation of land are brought as a challenge to German Studies. Both Karawane and some Indigenous Studies scholars deploy strategic essentialisms and make similar arguments about the linkages between migration and colonialism. Nandita Sharma points out that “seeing migration as an act of colonialism […] relies on the assumption of a strong, essential relationship between particular groups of people and particular lands. This is what I call a territorialized understanding of colonization and imperialism” (Sharma 2017, p. 225). When “‘migrants’ and their movements into places identified as ‘indigenous’ are seen as a part of the process of colonialism” migrants can only be understood as colonizers while “the entire process of human migration [is rendered] as a serious problem” (Sharma and Wright 2008, p. 123). Along with Sharma and Wright, we wonder “if it is […] accurate […] to describe as settler colonialism the forced movements of enslaved Africans, the movement of unfree indentured Asians, or the subsequent Third World displacements and migrations of people from across the globe, many of them indigenous people themselves” (Sharma and Wright 2008, p. 121). In decolonization-oriented German Studies, we can either: (a) develop nuanced approaches, if at all possible, that can simultaneously circulate seemingly contradictory context and power-differential dependent notions of indigeneity or (b) opt for decolonizing practices that do not operate on the opposition of migrant and native; that is, opt for decolonizing “practices […] that are fundamentally anti racist and […] fully cognizant of the necessity of anti-capitalist decolonization” (Sharma and Wright 2008, p. 122). Nandita Sharma, for example, argues against a territorial understanding of colonialism and decolonization which

32  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ

mobilizes the Indigenous/migrant dichotomy. Instead of territoriality, she proposes “the commons2 as the object of colonial possession and the commoners as the subjects of colonial rule and as the agents of decolonization” (Sharma 2017, p. 226). Decolonization then, is not achieved via the repatriation of territory and Indigenous sovereignty but through “gaining [the] commons and [the] effective assertion of common rights” (Sharma 2017, p. 226). The decolonial turn championed by Sharma is decidedly anti-nationalist. “The global system of capitalism and nationstates” she argues, “are deeply intertwined since both arose from” colonialism, or rather “the bloody violence of expropriating the commons and exploiting the commoners” (Sharma and Wright 2008, p. 131). By virtue of the radical challenge to “capitalist social relations and those organized through the national state, such as sovereignty,” Sharma’s decolonization project circumvents the deeply troubling dissonance we described as corrosive to German Studies earlier in the essay (Sharma and Wright 2008, p. 131).

2  The Crawl Toward Anti-colonial German Studies The German Studies Association urges on its website that we take up the challenge to “ensure the place of German Studies at all levels of ­education” (thegsa.org). In doing so, it partly tasks us with uncritically calling upon the inestimable value of the historical connectedness, even rootedness, of German-speaking immigrants in the development of the United States. The role of the German language in the “settling” of the United States is undeniable, especially in our systems of education. Prior to the white Common School Movement, which guaranteed that all, white, European settlers could continue speaking their language in the “New World,” German was the most widespread language of instruction (Iyengar 2014). During the Common School Era period that began in the 1830s, many of the early public schools “became de facto German or German-English schools, by virtue of the fact that all the children living in the area were German, and the same teacher who 2 “The commons is an organization of human activity that ‘vests all property in the community and organizes labor for the common benefit of all.’ Thus, the commons is much more than a resource: it is a practice-a practice of commoning” (Linebaugh as cited in Sharma and Wright 2008, p. 131).

2  ACCOUNTING FOR OUR SETTLER COLONIALISM … 

33

had taught in the parochial or neighborhood school was kept on when the school fell under state supervision” (Toth as cited in Iyengar 2014, p. 43). But the perpetuation of the German language among white settler colonialists was predicated on the removal of Indigenous populations, as well as the suppression and erasure of Indigenous languages: “the theft of Indigenous lands not only gave white settlers the space to build their schools; it also provided for the financing of the common schools” (Iyengar 2014, p. 43). In contrast to the genocides perpetrated by German-speaking Europe during the World Wars, the colonial settlement of the United States is seen in simpler, exclusively positive terms, if it is seen at all in the German Studies curriculum. The GSA website puts forward this view as a prerogative: A myriad of North American place names, from Bismarck to New Braunfels, attests to the presence of German-speaking immigrants in the settlement of this continent. Politically, German immigrants have played an important role in the evolution of the United States from the Revolutionary War to the Progressive Era and beyond […] German thought is fundamental to many of our academic disciplines. From kindergarten to the graduate seminar, the very structure of our educational system has been influenced by German models. Regardless of their ethnic heritage, North Americans have integrated, consciously or unconsciously, many aspects of German culture into their lives and institutions. (thegsa.org, emphasis added)

Indeed, “settlement” here historically sets the very conditions that make this discipline (and by extension, this article) at all possible, so it appears a tactic of maintaining hegemony to view the arrival of German-speaking immigrants to the United States in affirmative, rather than critical terms. We see this as an oversight of the developments in German Studies that aim for the “critical rather than the affirmative concept of culture” (Seeba 1989, p. 148). The refusal to approach settlement critically should be untenable with or without the charge to decolonize German Studies. German Studies in the United States has undeniably undergone critical, if finite, developments since the postwar era, as outlined in a number of studies about the state of the field. German Studies has become more inclusive. More contemporary critical approaches within the field— from postcolonial to queer to ecocritical—incorporate developments of the previous decades informed, in large part, by movements demanding recognition, liberation, representation, equality, equity, and justice. Even

34  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ

then, these approaches have not necessarily broadly or fundamentally changed the field on a curricular level, in part because “the task is ­admittedly complex [since] the issues are both definitional and epistemological, with theoretical assumptions that in most cases range far beyond the traditional purview of German departments” (Herminghouse 2005, p. 11). Furthermore, “the scholar who strays beyond departmental boundaries to obtain a grounding in cognate fields may be suspected of dilettantism or lack of focus and commitment to [their] disciplinary home” (Herminghouse 2005, p. 11). In spite of these challenges, many of us have fought for a more inclusive German Studies. But such inclusivity has yet to take serious account of our occupation. In other words, if we are to work toward an anti-colonial German Studies, then these critical developments prove insufficient. Moreover, we now recognize critical approaches in German Studies as complicit in the practices of “securing a share of a settler-appropriated wealth” (Tuck and Yang 2012, p. 7). In the following, we point to feminism and intercultural German Studies in order to illustrate how these two critical developments have changed the field, yet also face limits of their own. The Coalition of Women in German, founded in 1974, paved the way for feminist scholarship within the discipline, which “had a unique impact in demystifying the alleged neutrality of German Studies” (Bontempelli 2003, p. 168). Feminist scholarship exposed how “German Studies has remained patriarchal not only on account of the patrilineal hereditary system that has governed the assignment of chairs and the succession to the role of invested and acknowledged master, but also in terms of its constitutive obsession with the correct transmission of texts […]” (Bontempelli 2003, p. 167). In the oft-cited volume of The German Quarterly, “Germanistik as German Studies, Interdisciplinary Theories and Methods,” Sara Lennox outlines in “Feminist Scholarship and Germanistik” not only how two decades of vibrant feminist scholarship remained generally devalued vis-à-vis its isolation within Literary and Cultural Studies, German Studies, and the academic institution more generally (Lennox 1989, p. 161), but also how Black feminist criticism rightfully challenged the myopia of Anglo-American feminism (Lennox 1989, p. 164). Azade Seyhan’s response to Lennox’s article summarizes the critical shift to a plural “feminisms” with the statement, “Feminism cannot be collapsed into a fixed identity or a representation as a coherent regulative metaphor” (Seyhan 1989, p. 171). Mainstream German Studies is still catching up to incorporate this pluralism. From this ­example, we see how critical developments do not just open the potential

2  ACCOUNTING FOR OUR SETTLER COLONIALISM … 

35

to shift our field toward equitability, but also how they eventually encounter and must interrogate their own limits. In this same Spring 1989 volume of The German Quarterly, intercultural critique emerges as a critical response to the changing postwar demographics of German-speaking Europe, the particularities of place with regard to the study of German, and to the role of the Cold War in shaping Area Studies Programs. Looking back at the Cold War period, scholars like Gayatri Spivak and Noam Chomsky contend that Area Studies were “spawned by interregional vigilance” (Spivak 2003, p. 8), “established to secure U.S. power in the Cold War” (Spivak 2003, p. 3). As a clear economic benefactor of the Cold War thaw and of a united Germany guided mostly by the policies of the Federal Republic of Germany, German Studies in the United States was perfectly poised to cash in on the celebratory euphoria of reunification, sidestepping the critique of the murderous, xenophobic dark side of reunification, as evidenced by the 1992 Rostock-Lichtenhagen riots and the 1993 Solingen arson attack. After a gradual shrinking of German departments in the 1980s, “the strengthening of small German programs and departments in the early 1990s […] has often been attributed to the infectious fascination with the reunification of the two German states” (Trommler 2015, p. 21). It is perhaps in anticipation of this fascination that Hinrich C. Seeba warns against German Studies’ subservience to a “culture industry,” where “the surplus of cultural trade had taken the place of political imperialism” (Seeba 1989, p. 148). He becomes wary of being reduced to an educational cheerleader for German-speaking Europe who is to nostalgically reproduce an “ideologically innocent enough” classical vision of German culture (Seeba 1989, p. 146). Michael T. Jones, in his response to Seeba, agrees that an uncritical, affirmative approach to German identity would “only be a fearful thing, exclusionary and xenophobic at best, with worse consequences surely imaginable” (Jones 1989, p. 155). Consequently, the “Interkulturelle Germanistik” movement, exemplified in the hefty compendia of articles from around the globe, Handbuch interkulturelle Germanistik (2003), seeks to recognize and legitimize the multitude of cultural perspectives produced in relation to Germanspeaking Europe (Wierlacher and Bogner 2003). From this perspective, German Studies in India is and should be different than German Studies in Brazil, and such global perspectives on German Studies not only change the possibilities of discourse but also eliminate the predilection for essentialization. As Patricia Herminghouse explains:

36  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ By the early nineties, the social, political, and geographical ­transformation of Germany and its situation in the European community, the tidy dichotomies of East/West, German/foreign as well as the old monolithic representations of German-ness that originated in nineteenth-century ­ longings for nationhood were being challenged by explorations of cultural identity in terms of hybridity, intersections, and margins. Meanwhile, within the humanities themselves, that which had hitherto been excluded from a white, middle-class, heterosexual orientation to “culture” had begun to inform the various cultural studies approaches. Drawing on an international corpus of “theory,” these approaches held out the promise of transcending the narrowly conceived “national” literary canon that Ruth Ellen Joeres has aptly referred to as a demonstration of “the aesthetic prowess of a country.” The notion of a paradigmatic ethnic monoculture that underlay “Germanistik” was rapidly losing its credibility. (Herminghouse 2005, p. 8)

Thus, in 1996, in a powerful call building off of the developments of feminist and intercultural German Studies, Alice Kuzniar asks German Studies scholars to move away from centering questions within the field from sites of nationalism altogether. Kuzniar proposes that we take as our point of departure not the territorial dispute over what constitutes the German Area but instead sites from which we can examine systems of oppression, e.g., gender, sexuality, race, media, environment (Kuzniar 1996, p. 122). While Kuzniar’s call to action is taken up by many of the scholars in this volume of essays, and while many of us have been trained in and espouse these critical approaches, a “hidden but widespread ‘Angst’” described over ten years ago by Pier Carlo Bontempelli over the potential ­“excessive and uncontrollable expansion and diversification [of the] field” still pervades German Studies (Bontempelli 2003, p. 182). This fear of change is undeniably indebted to the origins of German Studies in the United States, to a furtive settlement mentality that has firstly hindered these critical approaches from transforming the field and secondly has stopped us from recognizing how even these critical approaches might inadvertently benefit from silence on the matter of settler colonialism.

3  The Work of Unsettling Outlining a program for a decolonial German Studies would ­commit a fundamental fallacy of imagining and centering a settler c­olonialist futurity. Therefore, in lieu of an inevitably colonialist plan of action

2  ACCOUNTING FOR OUR SETTLER COLONIALISM … 

37

ultimately geared at maintaining German Studies, at this point, we will commence by examining how the various practices that define our field themselves generate scripts that are “doing profound cultural work” by contributing to the erasure of Indigenous life and the continuation of colonialist practices (Rowe and Tuck 2017, p. 6). A major step toward unsettling our field and scholarship could be an investigation into the practices commonly mobilized to secure a place for German Studies in institutions of higher learning. Faced with steady, declining enrollments that, at this point, plague all language departments, German Studies departments and programs have sought to attract students and placate colleagues and administration by emphasizing the applicability and relevance of German. This mostly entails touting the impact of Germany on the global economy and politics, promising improved career prospects due to Germany’s wealth, the proliferation of the language across the globe. Our associations, websites, and departmental marketing materials claim that those who study German will reap “rewards in the labor market” earning upward of 3.8% more than students who study other languages, echoing the calculations of the economists Albert Saiz and Elena Zoido (2002, p. 12). At no point are those statistics critically examined. What are the sources of this economic wealth and prosperity so casually cast out as bait to lure in students? Could the projected earning power merely be a reflection of the privileges already afforded to a particular student demographics? This advertised economic hegemony of Germany is predicated on a colonial history and genocide; the US anti-communist Cold War efforts (e.g., Marshall Plan); and the exploitation of (im)migrant laborers hailing predominantly from Southern Europe and/or from the Global South. This is obviously not an exhaustive list. Adverts for German Studies that tout Germany’s global economic power while glossing over substantive criticisms hope to sustain the field through a rhetoric of privilege that, whether inadvertently or advertently, gestures to dominant groups. We are, moreover, promising a kind of access to our students foreclosed to underrepresented, marginalized populations in Germany and in the United States. Or, to put it more pointedly, we are promising access to settler wealth and institutions over the backs of Indigenous and other excluded, exploited populations. Another field-specific advertising practice is attached to settler-­ colonialist identities and heritage. Specifically, appeals to German heritage are a common recruiting tool for German departments. ­

38  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ

However, as Malathi Michelle Iyengar points out, there is no innocence in language policies in the colonial context of the United States. As languages spoken by people of color in the colonies were subject to erasure (by genocide and suppression), white European settlers were free to continue speaking their native tongues. “The European and Euroamerican settlers of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries (up until World War I) generally encountered an ­‘atmosphere of linguistic tolerance, where bilingual education, ethnic press, and mother tongue literature, entertainment, and religious service were the order of the day’” (Iyengar 2014, p. 37). The right and freedom to practice one’s native tongue was crucial in the recruitment of European ­settlers. The persistence of European languages in the United States and the erasure of Indigenous languages and populations go hand in hand: “settlers expected to keep their languages and gain land” (Iyengar 2014, p. 40). Promises of linguistic and ethnic continuity in the United States were crucial in sustaining continued emigration from Germany throughout the nineteenth century. Simultaneously, the mid-nineteenth-century shift in nomenclature from Auswanderer (emigrants) to Auslandsdeutsche (overseas Germans) also encouraged German settlement of the Americas by insisting on the emigrant’s Germanness across distances. Before this “major semantic shift,” emigrants had to “necessarily risk losing their national identity” in the passage between continents “[since] membership of the German nation was closely linked to the idea of being rooted in German soil” (Conrad 2012, p. 19). By reinscribing an originary, inherent nationality onto the émigré that could not be cast off no matter the destination or circumstances of departure, the new label—Auslandsdeutsche—assured “the timelessness, the permanency, of membership in the German nation” (Conrad 2012, p. 19). Thus, German settlement of the Americas is unthinkable as separate from a colonial, expansionist, nation-building project that Richard Wagner celebrated with the following words: “We will sail in ships across the sea and here and there set up a new Germany…we will do better than the Spanish, for whom the New World became a cleric-ridden slaughterhouse, and differently from the English, for whom it became a treasure-trove. We will do it in a wonderful, German way” (Wagner as cited in Conrad 2012, p. 17). Without a thorough critique of the status of German in the context of the United States, German departments position themselves as sites for the romanticization of white settler colonial histories. Here the settling of the United States by white, German-speaking settler colonialists can

2  ACCOUNTING FOR OUR SETTLER COLONIALISM … 

39

be celebrated without reference to the genocide of Indigenous peoples or slavery, and the myth of German settler colonialism as somehow exceptional, peaceful or even fair, can circulate unimpeded. What’s more, the import of these myths into academic contexts also legitimizes them.

References Bontempelli, Pier Carlo. 2003. Knowledge Power and Discipline: German Studies and National Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Conrad, Sebastian. 2012. German Colonialism: A Short History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. El-Tayeb, Fatima. 2011. European Others: Queering Ethnicity in Postnational Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Fitzpatrick, Matthew P. 2018. Colonialism, Postcolonialism, and Decolonization. Central European History 51 (1): 83–89. Gausset, Quentin, Justin Kenrick, and Robert Gibb. 2011. Indigeneity and Autochthony: A Couple of False Twins? Social Anthropology 19 (2): 135–42. Herminghouse, Patricia. 2005. German Studies in the USA: A History of Crises. Otago German Studies 20: 5–17. Iyengar, Malathi Michelle. 2014. “Not Mere Abstractions: Language Policies and Language Ideologies in U.S. Settler Colonialism.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 3 (2): 33–59. Jones, Michael T. 1989. Identity, Critique, Affirmation: A Response to Hinrich C. Seeba’s Paper. The German Quarterly 62 (2): 155–57. Kuzniar, Alice. 1996. Cross-Gendered Cross-Cultural Studies and the German Program. In The Future of Germanistik in the USA: Changing Our Prospects, edited by John A. McCarthy and Katrin Schneider, 122–31. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Lennox, Sara. 1989. Feminist Scholarship and Germanistik. The German Quarterly 62 (2): 158–70. Rowe, Aimee Carrillo, and Eve Tuck. 2017. “Settler Colonialism and Cultural Studies: Ongoing Settlement, Cultural Production, and Resistance.” Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 17 (1): 3–13. Roy, Arundhati. 2008. “The Monster in the Mirror.” The Guardian, December 12, sec. World News. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/12/ mumbai-arundhati-roy. Saiz, Albert, and Elena Zoido. 2002. The Returns to Speaking a Second Language. Working Paper (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia), No. 2–16, Research Dept, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Seeba, Hinrich C. 1989. Critique of Identity Formation: Toward an Intercultural Model of German Studies. The German Quarterly 62 (2): 144–54.

40  A. MANTHRIPRAGADA AND E. MUŠANOVIĆ Seyhan, Azade. 1989. Prospects for Feminist Literary Theory in German Studies: A Response to Sara Lennox’s Paper. The German Quarterly 62 (2): 171–77. Sharma, Nandita. 2017. “Migrants and Indigenous Nationalism.” In The Routledge International Handbook of European Social Transformations, edited by Peeter Vihalemm, Anu Masso, and Signe Opermann, 225–36. Routledge. Sharma, Nandita, and Cynthia Wright. 2008. “Decolonizing Resistance, Challenging Colonial States.” Social Justice 35 no. 3 (113): 120–38. Accessed January 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/29768504. Sium, Aman, Chandni Desai, and Eric Ritskes. 2012. “Towards the ‘Tangible Unknown’: Decolonization and the Indigenous Future.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): I–XIII. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 2003. Death of a Discipline. New York: Columbia University Press. TallBear, Kim. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Trommler, Frank. 2015. “German Studies: The Short Version.” In Taking Stock of German Studies in the United States, NED-New edition, 15–28. Rochester, NY: Boydell and Brewer. Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40. Tuhiwai Smith, Linda, Eve Tuck, and K Wayne Yang, eds. 2019. Indigenous and Decolonizing Studies in Education: Mapping the Long View. New York: Routledge. Usbeck, Franck. 2013. “Learning from ‘Tribal Ancestors:’ How the Nazis Used Indian Imagery to Promote a ‘Holistic’ Understanding of Nature Among Germans.” ELOHI: Peuples Indigènes et Environnement 4 (July): 45–60. Wierlacher, Alois, and Andrea Bogner. 2003. Handbuch interkulturelle Germanistik. J.B. Metzler: Sonderausgabe. Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native. Journal of Genocide Research 8 (4): 387–409.

CHAPTER 3

Habits of Mind, Habits of Heart: Cultivating Humanity Through a Decolonized German Studies Curriculum Amanda Randall

1   Das Unbehagen im Deutschunterricht When I joined the German faculty at St. Olaf College in 2015, the department was beginning a transition to a content-based curriculum (CBI) aligned with the dominant foreign language (FL) curriculum design maxim: content from the beginning, language throughout.1

1 See

Bernhardt and Berman (1999), Byrnes (2002), Byrnes and Kord (2002), Swaffar and Arens (2005), Swaffar and Urlaub (2016).

This essay is a shortened version of my blog post, Randall (2017). For their comments and suggestions during the preparation of the original blog post and of the present essay, my heartfelt thanks go to Wendy Allen, Katherine Arens, Janet Swaffar, Ervin Malakaj, and Regine Criser. A. Randall (*)  St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_3

41

42  A. RANDALL

By creating a “more coherent curriculum in which language, culture, and literature are taught as a continuous whole” (MLA Ad Hoc Committee 2007, p. 237),2 it is argued, students can better acquire “the ability to read, and write, and speak with critical discernment about important matters in the world through an awareness of and facility with multiple languages” (Ryshina-Pankova and Byrnes 2017, p. 425). The move from the communicative method and bifurcated language-beforeculture paradigm to CBI resonated well with my own multidisciplinary scholarly orientation. But in the process of initiating this design transition, I felt a growing sense of unease. My unease concerned the image of “German” culture that students encounter in the thematic organization, text selection, and ­ pedagogical scaffolding of beginning- and intermediate-level textbooks, but also in broader scholarly discussions of foreign language curriculum design found in publications, conferences, and teaching workshops. Laudably, representations of more diverse identities and experiences—especially those defined in hybrid ethnic terms, such as Turkish German and Black German—are appearing more frequently in German Studies literary and cultural research and teaching materials.3 Yet these identities still appear marginal, even tokenized, against the ethno-national norm of “German” identity.4 When consulting with colleagues about curricular models that we could adapt from successful German programs, I found myself wincing at the suggestion to frame the intermediate sequence (for which I was responsible) in terms of “being German.” The point of that thematic framing—that all individuals are socialized into some set of more or less commonly held practices, institutions and beliefs—is affirmed in the 2007 MLA Report and in the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (ACTFL et al. 2011). Yet, to my ears, the notion of “being German”—or “being” 2 Quoted

in Ryshina-Pankova and Byrnes (2017, p. 424). networks include the Black German Heritage and Research Association (http:// bghra.org/) and the German Studies Association networks for Asian-German Studies and Black Diaspora Studies (https://thegsa.org/interdisciplinary-networks). On the teaching side, two new beginning-level textbooks—Grenzenlos Deutsch (open-access) and Impuls Deutsch (Klett USA)—are designed with the express intent to integrate diverse identities within the German-speaking world. 4 Consider the sequestering of diverse identities in the final chapter, entitled “Kulturelle Vielfalt,” of the beginning-level textbook, Neue Horizonte (Cengage, 8th Edition), or the ethno-national image of Germany reflected in fictional main characters of Kontakte (McGrawHill, 5th Edition). 3 Research

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

43

any ethno-national identity descriptor, for that matter—rings p ­ rescriptive, undifferentiated, and exclusionary. Even the suggested alternative, “becoming German,” meant to better highlight diverse positionalities and the processual nature of identity formation, left me feeling discomfited. It still seems to retain a teleology of unreflected Leitkultur (guiding culture) that essentializes a certain class and regional identity and precludes discussion of cultural literacy in terms of identity politics or diversity within “German” culture. Through research and conversations with likewise unsettled ­professional peers and mentors, I came to articulate the core of this deep unease concerning German language and culture teaching in US higher education: despite instructors’, SLE scholars’, and textbook publishers’ increasing awareness of and sincere efforts to better reflect in the curriculum the diversity within the German-speaking world, there persists a monolithic, ethno-national, heteronormative, and ableist image of what it is to “be” and “become” “German.” This image colors or even overshadows the presentation of and engagement with difference—and, by extension, with critical questions of social justice—within the cultural areas about which Germanists teach. This issue is more than a mere annoyance; it is a matter of violent neglect and exclusion. The US “German” curriculum and the notion of “German” identity are constructs two centuries in the making that reflect a narrow image— namely, that of the Federal Republic of Germany (FGR)—of what it means to “be German.” An ethno-national definition of “Germanness”— that one does not “become” German, but can only really “be” German through bloodline—underpinned Germany’s nineteenth-century national unification and successor nationalisms. This definition persists in popular imagination, portions of political policy, and in German Studies in the curricular tendency to eschew or marginalize the diversity of Germanspeaking communities (Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the German Democratic Republic [GDR], as well as communities of German speakers outside of Europe, today and historically) and the diverse communities and identities (ethnic and national, gender, class, ability, etc.) within German-speaking spheres. At best, diversity appears as a tokenized sidenote to the dominant ethno-national cultural narratives of FRGGermanness. At worst, it appears as a social problem requiring resolution through immigration policy, integration education, and the like. The tendency to diversify curricula without questioning the social stratification implied in the ways the “Others” of the German-speaking

44  A. RANDALL

world are presented (or not) suggests that committing to more fully diversifying the German Studies curriculum is not enough: the curriculum must concomitantly be decolonized. Where diversifying the curriculum entails recognizing and engaging the real and legitimate internal diversity and complexity of German-speaking societies, not just comparisons to the outside, decolonizing entails recognizing, questioning, and destabilizing the hegemonies implicated in the construction of cultures, canons, and curricula. In a sense, decolonization serves as a critique of existing diversification efforts, for as Zoé Samudzi pointedly states, “The inclusion of marginalized identities and experiences without decentering dominant narratives is an understanding of diversity that leaves oppressive structures intact, and in fact, insulates them from criticism” (2016, n.p.). Understood in this way, to diversify and decolonize the German Studies curriculum does not mean simply adding or replacing cultural texts in order to include a wider array of experiences and identities within German-speaking societies today. It demands a paradigmatic shift consisting in a new set of intended learning outcomes and organizing frameworks that inform both the selection and articulation of cultural content themes as well as the selection, scaffolding, and articulation of texts and tasks within the themed units that organize a course. If the progress toward instantiating translingual and transcultural competences in our curricula in order to prepare students for living in a “changed world” (MLA 2007) has stalled, as Ryshina-Pankova and Byrnes (p. 424) argue, then perhaps the initiative to diversity and decolonize the German Studies curriculum for an ever-changing world could prove the critical elaboration that would drive that mission back into dynamic motion. One might rightly ask, how can we teach students to deconstruct and challenge the stereotypes, normativities, and potential injustices underlying narratives of “Germanness” if they do not first have the chance to encounter those “standard” images and discourses? The practical and philosophical question of what texts would be displaced in order to make space for greater polyvocality and criticism is an issue I discuss later in the essay. Suffice it to say, an iconoclastic discarding of the texts and ­narratives from which German Studies curricula are still frequently built is not what I am advocating because that could actually undermine the process of reflexive, critical learning. Moreover, such a move could render the field unrecognizable to students whose horizon of expectations (Jauss 1970, p. 12) for German Studies must first be met before it can be—indeed, in order for it to be—transformed.

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

45

Rather, decolonizing the curriculum would entail both diversifying and decentering the cultural narratives within the “German” cultural content in order to unsettle the commonly received, yet incomplete image of the German-speaking world. Connecting German-speaking Europe to other world cultures and to its own cultural politics can help students to recognize themselves as products of culture and ­occupiers of positionalities within societies that are likewise internally diverse. Confronting German-speaking world cultures in this shifted framing would provide students with opportunities to confront their own essentialized worldviews and to recover an awareness of diversity where only sameness had been seen before.5 Especially in the present social and political climate, where isolationism, racism, sexism, and other forms of individual and institutionalized discrimination not only persist but appear amplified, the project of diversifying and decolonizing the German Studies curriculum becomes an ethical enterprise. It goes to the heart of the humanities mission to instill attitudes and aptitudes for building and living in a more connected world. My intent for this essay is to identify the manifold stakes and practical considerations—namely, curriculum redesign and conditions of implementation—that German instructors face when working to diversify and decolonize curricula. The set of interventions that I propose are informed in part by the decolonizing self-criticism that transformed the field of cultural anthropology in the 1980s. Translating core elements of that disciplinary reform to foreign language education (FLE), I contend, can aid our students in connecting critical aptitudes with empathetic attitudes, forming both “habits of mind” and “habits of heart” through the German Studies curriculum. To justify the need for this turn, I begin by laying out the stakes for the field and for the humanities more broadly.

2  The Stakes for the Humanities and for German Studies In the following two sections, I examine how diversifying and decolonizing German Studies has the potential to answer to the needs of a broad, interlocking array of constituents, from the enterprise of higher 5 Recall here Vicki Galloway’s adaptation of Claude Lévi-Strauss: “It is the assumption of sameness that triggers facile interpretation, immediate judgment, and turgid culture-ranking criteria” (Galloway 1999, p. 152).

46  A. RANDALL

education and the humanities, to the field of German Studies, to the ­situations of individual institutions. Although German Studies has diversified and decentered its identity in the direction of transdisciplinarity,6 institutionally, German programs remain housed with other modern languages within humanities faculties. For this reason, the fate of German Studies is still tied closely to the fate of the humanities, and, as one hears so often in public and institutional discourse, the humanities are in “crisis.”7 In light of social cynicism and economic pragmatism permeating public discourse and policy decisions concerning the value of university education, humanities scholars today are asking what the mission and value of their disciplines are, could, and should be.8 The situation also demands acknowledgment of, and readiness to dismantle the exclusionary structures of higher education and of the classic notion of Bildung undergirding the humanities.9 To this point, however, responses to the “crisis of the humanities” are most often reflexive reactions to the pressures to reorient higher education toward practical skills development for career preparation and workforce building. Strategies for reframing the value of the humanities range from shoring up the traditional core of aesthetics and hermeneutics (rescue the humanities on their own terms),10 to forging transdisciplinary alignments with STEM fields, social sciences, and business in an attempt to reposition the humanities not as ancillary

6 Today the training, research, and teaching of Germanists extends from the traditional core of language and literature into all disciplinary directions—from film and media studies to STEM and all configurations of cultural studies and social sciences. See Halverson and Costabile-Heming (2015) and the GSA Fortieth Anniversary Issue of German Studies Review (Hake 2016). 7 On the implications of the humanities crisis for foreign language departments, see Berman (2011). 8 While debates about the value and role of the humanities in US higher education have their roots in the 1970s/80s, the political climate surrounding the 2016 presidential election has infused the discussion with a new urgency to move past the discourse of ­“crisis” and toward actionable imagining of ways forward that recall the traditional mission of humanities education while also recapturing them for a new set of social and political realities. See Newfield and Strickland (1995), Newfield (2016), Nussbaum (1997, 2010), Smith (2015). 9 See, for example, Asger’s analysis of Jürgen Habermas’ critique of Bildung (2015) and Justin Stover, “There Is No Case for the Humanities” (2018). 10 See, for example, Eric Adler, “When Humanists Undermine the Humanities” (2017).

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

47

to those fields, but rather as forming the core of all human enterprise.11 For it is the humanities disciplines, it is argued, that articulate and search for diverse answers to the questions of what it means to be human and humane. These same dilemmas and strategies are debated within the fields of modern languages. In “The Issue” section of the The Modern Language Journal (Summer 2017), Marianna Ryshina-Pankova and Heidi Byrnes remind readers not to lose sight of the core contribution of foreign language studies within the humanities: “the issue is not about disciplinarity,” they argue, but is rather “a sophisticated linking of best knowledge about instructed language learning for literate adults with content that is both possible from the standpoint of emerging L2 abilities and desirable as learners engage with the other culture(s)” (Ryshina-Pankova and Byrnes 2017, p. 424). Yet the question of what content is “desirable” is clearly influenced by outside pressures, including students’ (and education funders’) economic concerns and program survival fears. In German Studies, initiatives to incorporate and collaborate with STEM fields and international business programs are multiplying and receive ample support from organizations like the Goethe-Institut and the American Association of Teachers of German.12 These are positive developments in that they address the question of the field’s “relevance.” But, as Ryshina-Pankova and Heidi Byrnes caution, if we cannot make the case for the humanities as a unique and valuable language-based mode of inquiry, then “no amount of collaboration that connects and innovates and advocates, that uses technology and seeks community engagement, will make a difference” (p. 425). Moderation in interdisciplinary strategizing ought therefore to be observed, lest in our strivings to make German relevant to undergraduates we acquiesce to a pragmatist paradigm of higher education and ultimately undermine our holistic intellectual mission and identity by recasting German language and cultural learning as an auxiliary career tool. An alternative to that strategy would be to shore up programs strictly along the lines of philology and aesthetics in the hope that students will 11 See,

for instance, Tania Lombrozo, “The Humanities: What’s the Big Idea?” (2015). include the University of Rhode Island International Engineering Program and Northern Arizona University’s Interdisciplinary Global Programs. See also the STEM/ MINT initiatives of AATG (www.aatg.org/group/MINTDaF) and the Goethe-Institut (https://www.goethe.de/de/spr/unt/kum/clg.html). 12 Examples

48  A. RANDALL

recognize that common human experiences and concerns can be enlightened through the study of linguistics and literature. Yet this approach can falter if a greater balance of voices and perspectives in the texts upon which we build our curricula is not attained. As German Studies moves further toward a transdisciplinary identity and practice, a more optimal path may open between the conservative and the collaborative positions. This middle path would consist in a critical, comparative study of German language and German-speaking cultures through which students learn how and why to think and act humanely and justly in a diverse, globally connected society that is also, at times, highly unjust and inhumane. Whichever approach we take, if we are to successfully confront the manifold social, political, and economic pressures on German Studies, on the humanities, and on higher education, we must recognize and critically reevaluate the ethical implications of our teaching. John McCumber (2016) captures the stakes of strategically repositioning the humanities when he asks, can you imagine a “society full of young people who are creative energetic, entrepreneurial, technologically informed—and wholly comfortable with mass slaughter? I can, I’m in a German department” (“How the Humanities Can Help Fix the World”). This pithy remark neatly summarizes the special role that German Studies can play in educating a humane and just citizenry. In order to connect the value of canonical works and key cultural narratives of the Germanspeaking world to the mission of the humanities, our field must broaden its vision beyond teaching the history and implications of National Socialism, for instance, to illuminating the cultural, personal, and social stakes that moved individuals to question, to embrace, or to reject these politics—not as heroes or villains, but in terms of lived, everyday experience. This broadened vision also entails problematizing and transforming the artistic canons and cultural narratives themselves. The diversification of today’s German Studies curriculum with the introduction of content concerning migration, racism, gender bias, and colonialism is an important starting point. Admirable progress in this direction is already being made at the curricular level, as evidenced by the increasing number of language pedagogy conference presentations and scholarly articles on the topic.13 But such efforts will prove inadequate to the mission of 13 A perusal of ACTFL convention German contributions on diversity, inclusivity and social justice reveals an increasing dedication to integrating these topics into curricula and pedagogy. The same can be said of contributions to Die Unterrichtspraxis, beginning with the 1992 special issue on diversity.

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

49

the humanities if the more diverse texts are not scaffolded with a more critical intent to decolonize, that is, to decenter ethnocentric cultural narratives, to de-tokenize identities, and, ultimately, to place questions of social justice at the center of the curriculum. In summary, the stakes of diversifying and decolonizing the German curriculum are the same for German Studies as for the humanities and for higher education. For institutions, divisions, and programs, the matter comes down to articulating and actualizing a mission for the sake of survival: to reform the image and work of the humanities in order to continue forming a humane humanity. The project of diversifying and decolonizing the German Studies curriculum thus has very tangible implications when it is understood as aligned with a transforming humanities mission. Such curricular reform has implications for a diversity of constituents: for students who do, could, and should reflect a broader range of identities, experiences and motivations for learning the language and cultures of German-speaking societies; for German Studies programs under pressure to increase enrollments or face reduction or closure; for colleges and universities working to balance budgets while increasing affordability and equitable access; and for humanities fields under pressure to prove their value to society, both in terms of career outcomes and cultivating a socially engaged, humane citizenry. In short, the stakes of diversifying and decolonizing German Studies reach every level in which our field is implicated. If it can be agreed that the aim and value of higher education in general and of the humanities in particular is to cultivate a humane citizenry and to foster habits of self-cultivation for the sake of all humanity, then humanities faculty must not shrink from, but rather double down on this mission, not just as a public good, but as good for the public.14

3   Habits of Mind, Habits of Heart Over the last several years, we have seen colleges and universities across the country encountering and attempting to address campus incidents of racism, sexism, and other forms of institutional and individual

14 For a reflection on the notion of higher education as good for the public and a public good, see Newfield (2016).

50  A. RANDALL

discrimination and injustice.15 I wrote the first iteration of this essay in June 2017, one month after a confrontation about racism happened at my own institution.16 Witnessing those events confirmed to me that the humanities mission to equitably and respectfully cultivate a humane citizenry is more pressing than ever. As I sought to articulate concrete ways German Studies teaching could respond to what for me had become an immediate need for intervention and change, my department chair, Wendy Allen, reminded me that in our role as teachers, we can insist on habits of mind, but not habits of heart. But while we cannot require, let alone assess, a change in worldview among our students, this does not mean that we should not try to connect critical aptitudes with empathetic attitudes. In this section, I examine possibilities for affecting students’ habits of mind through the German Studies curriculum. I do this with an idealist humanist’s hope that if we cannot provoke concern for equity, inclusion and social justice, then we can at least offer students a framework for understanding culture—their own and that of others— that includes recognition and critical consideration of such concerns. This section outlines the practicalities and nuances of two central challenges: the process of curriculum design and overcoming resistance from those discomforted by or otherwise not convinced of the value of this curricular shift. To ground the exposition, I first elaborate how I envision the concept of decolonization operationalized specifically within German Studies. This is an important distinction to make, as decolonizing German Studies implies more than the intuitive connotations associated with better-known British and French colonialism and postcolonialism. When I returned from the inaugural Diversity, Decolonization, and the German Curriculum conference in March 2017 and reported on what I learned, my St. Olaf German colleagues asked what I meant by “decolonization” and what it has to do with what we do in our department. I explained my understanding this way: decolonizing the German curriculum entails: 15 Incidents of discrimination on college campuses is increasingly well documented in media reporting and on public and private online message boards. Advocacy-oriented entities such as the Harvard University Voices of Diversity project and The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education contribute analyses and documentation of cases and trends. 16 For an account of the events at St. Olaf College and links to media documentation, see Randall (2017).

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

51

• decentering the narrative of German-speaking identities, ­specifically moving the German curriculum and the field of German Studies away from ethno-national definitions and socially normative ­representations of (FRG-)German culture and society; • centering questions of and strategies for understanding social j­ustice in our curriculum, including by giving students opportunities and tools for “talking back” to texts and for constructing mosaics of multiple positions using texts with variable evaluations of one event or site; • integrating socially critical questions and critical self-reflection across all course levels via comparative work that recaptures alternatives rather than essentializing a state of affairs. This requires creating teaching modules and materials that integrate target ­language and content learning, but also may entail the selective use of English for certain critical tasks; and • “desanctifying” the target language, not by dismissing the value of linguistic accuracy, but by raising students’ awareness of how notions of “good German” and “native speakers” reflect language ideologies, that is, the relation between language and power, including how language plays into notions of, and discrimination against or marginalization of the Other.17 In short, decolonizing requires a fundamental reorientation in t­eaching students how to question the cultural content they encounter, rather than simply absorb it. The overall shift must be conceived of first in terms of the full range of pedagogical work that prioritizes decolonization as the telos and framing of diversity in the curriculum. Such a reform process entails, in this order: 1.  expanding intended learning outcomes to include not only the ability to recognize, describe, and engage critically and comparatively with diverse perspectives and positionalities within Germanspeaking societies, but to consider issues of positionalities, power, social stratification, and social justice;

17 On the concept of language ideologies, see Bauman and Briggs (2003), Bourdieu and Thompson (1991), Kroskrity (2003).

52  A. RANDALL

2. establishing frameworks for extending critical analysis at all course levels through rearticulation, reflection, comparison, and creative synthesis, following Bloom’s taxonomy as well as Bruner’s spiral model of education18; 3. designing a full range of well-articulated courses based on these ILOs and core frameworks incorporating themes, texts, and tasks that engage diverse perspectives; all while 4. working to overcoming the bifurcated curriculum by integrating language and cultural learning appropriately at every proficiency level.19 In setting language–culture integration as the last item to consider, this approach may seem to represent a reversal of the pedagogical and curricular design priorities advocated by the MLA and ACTFL. What the ordering of my list is meant to suggest is that the logical and necessary elaboration of the mission of FLE should dovetail with the humanities mission to cultivate a more humane citizenry, globally and locally. Thus, it is not the mechanics of designing what happens within our courses, but rather the foundational frameworks that must be the starting point for diversifying and decolonizing German Studies. 3.1   The Question of Design All curriculum design rests on the selection, articulation, and scaffolding of themes, texts, and tasks. To design for diversity and decolonization, this work should aim at helping learners acquire the desired new socially conscious, critical framework and the set of intellectual and linguistics habits that undergird it. For instructors trained in traditional literary canon-driven graduate programs that have not or have only just begun to critically rethink their curricula in this direction, such design work can be an intimidating challenge. Identifying new, more diverse texts is one of the more straightforward issues to solve, as ideas for new texts reflecting more diverse identities and experiences in and of the German-speaking sphere are circulating more widely than ever through German instructor networks. Selecting and scaffolding course elements and sequences in a decolonizing frame is the more challenging task. 18 Bloom 19 See

(1956), Bruner (1960), see also Anderson and Sosniak (1994) and Lee (2014). Footnote 4.

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

53

As outlined above, one must begin by articulating the intended end points of study and a critical framework within which to create a cohesive curriculum. But when we only have so much space in a syllabus, only so many contact hours, only so many foreign language semester and major course requirements, only so much individual control over a shared curriculum, the task of redesign implies many more basic strategizing questions, the answers to which will necessarily vary by program and institutional context. Such questions include: • Due to the politics and structure of academic labor, most of us must rely in part on commercial textbooks, none of which have so far made great strides in the direction of diversity and decolonization the way it is conceived here. How do we best choose, modify and supplement these resources in critical ways without undermining confidence in the materials and the program/instructor that selected them, while also meeting the other demands on our work time? • Texts reflecting greater diversity of identity and experience are increasingly visible and available in the German Studies community, but what inherited “German” texts and narratives should get ­displaced to make space for new voices? • How do we reframe the common, canonical “German” narratives that do get retained so as to decenter them and insert complexity without disorienting or alienating students or colleagues for whom those works are especially meaningful? • For theme selection and articulation, would a cyclical approach that revisits themes from different angles and levels of complexity be preferable to a linear approach that treats whole themes in their full complexity in sequence? • How would diversity and decolonization be integrated ­differently for programs that are proficiency-based?20 Genre-based?21 Mulitiliteracies-based?22

20 On proficiency-based instruction, see the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (2012) and the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements performance indicators (2017). 21 On genre-based instruction, see Byrnes and Sprang (2004). 22 On the multiliteracies approach, see Kern (2000), Swaffar and Arens (2005), Paisani et al. (2015).

54  A. RANDALL

• How do we stage and assess classroom work and assignments in ways that render this curricular framework visible and central, as opposed to having the appearance of “cultural enrichment”? • How do we evaluate students on their reading for positionality? For instance, if a student does not notice, mention, or problematize the fact that a given literary text was written by a Nazi sympathizer and relate that to broader implications of power and oppression, how should that affect the assessment of text-based reasoning? • If we can require of students only habits of mind, not habits of heart, how do we assess their work in a decolonized curriculum and balance that element of assessment with the other priorities of linguistic accuracy, idiomatic mastery, analytical deconstruction, and argumentation? Several of these design issues have been addressed in professional publication,23 but most have not yet been linked explicitly to the project of diversity and decolonization. A typical starting point for strategizing would be to elaborate established FLE frameworks for the task of diversifying and decolonizing curricula from the program level to the levels of unit and task design. An additional strategy I would like to propose is the adaptation of a framework from outside the present scope of established FLE research and practice, namely postmodern ethnography. While the field of FLE has productively adapted several anthropological concepts to develop means and measures for integrating culture into the language curriculum, the postmodern turn that arose in the 1980s in dialogue with postcolonial theory and that now undergirds the mainstream of cultural anthropology has not made that transfer. Adapting foundational elements of the “writing culture critique” spearheaded by James Clifford, Michael ­ Fischer, and George E. Marcus could offer the missing link between efforts to instantiate transcultural competence and framing a decolonizing curriculum.24 These elements include:

23 See,

for instance, Redmann and Sederberg (2017), Hammer and Swaffar (2012). texts include Clifford and Marcus (1986), Marcus (1998), and Marcus and Fischer (1986). 24 Foundational

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

55

• Reflexivity, whereby the ethnographer acquires and transparently problematizes a critical sense of self, of the social and cultural ­positionality of her own “voice,” and of her complicity vis-à-vis the ­people among whom she does cultural research; • Polyvocality, that is, the inclusion of multiple voices of differing perspectives from the research field as opposed to the dominance of the ethnographer’s interpretive voice; • “Double-voicing,” which is closely related to polyvocality and points to the internal complexity of different positionalities, and “multi-sitedness,” referring to the fact that, even when fieldwork is stationary, “culture” is not, and so cannot be conceived of as a contained and stable phenomenon. Rather, culture is dynamic, permeable, and multiply connected to other “sites,” not just in the sense of localities, but also epistemologies, technologies, media, etc.; • Resisting linear narrative and the redemptive ending in ethnographic writing, as those literary conventions common to classical anthropology are not only not reflective of the actual dynamics of cultural phenomena but in fact reflect an interpretive framing that places the power of representation in the hands of the ethnographer instead of in the hands of her interlocutors. These postmodern concepts and methods add up to an ethics of ­ethnography that foregrounds the complexity of culture, including and especially issues of power. By integrating these ethnographic values into redesigning the German Studies curriculum, we could foster a greater understanding of self as a cultural being, of the complexity of cultural phenomena in general and of German-speaking culture areas in particular, and of the social injustices that arise when power is stratified along identity lines. 3.2   Meeting Resistance In considering these pedagogical issues and their potential theoretical underpinnings, we should bear in mind that although we most often teach young adult learners, we should not assume that most students enter undergraduate German programs ready and able to identify and confront paradigms that sequester or exclude diverse voices and that reify structures of social stratification, marginalization, and exclusion. For this

56  A. RANDALL

reason, drawing on the key critical frameworks through the whole curriculum, from the first-semester course to the senior capstone seminar, is crucial. Even when students are able to grasp and operationalize the basic dialectic of constructing–deconstructing a cultural text, opening a space for cultural criticism can still provoke anxiety in some students. Indeed, when the affective filter of language learning becomes compounded with the affective filter of perspective sharing about complex or contentious social issues that might challenge or set in conflict learners’ different positionalities, it can lead to resistance among some students (and instructors) who feel more comfortable with the familiar ethno-national narratives even when they recognize that those are not fully or fairly representative of the diversity and complexity of culture in German-speaking spheres. Not only can difference and complexity be uncomfortable to engage and hard to grasp, each learning community consists in a different array of positionalities that may be less obvious or cohesive than they appear, with some members who are less receptive or outright resistant to engaging culture in these ways. What to do when habits of heart hinder the formation of new habits of mind? What to do when students or instructors are reluctant to express critical thoughts out of fear of offending or being judged or excluded? And, how do we address the question of what “authorizes” German Studies faculty members, supposedly responsible for teaching German language and “German” culture, to be arbiters of thinking and dialogue about diversity and equity? There is also the question of how to respond to resistance from ­faculty peers. The intellectual community of German Studies is richly diverse in its constituent areas of expertise and paradigm commitments. What if department colleagues are not convinced, for whatever reason, of the value of diversifying and decolonizing the curriculum? Transforming the German Studies curriculum cannot be undertaken by individual instructors or through individual courses; one needs the support and investment of whole programs in order to begin, gain, and sustain momentum.25 This is not to say that individual interventions are 25 Ryshina-Pankova and Byrnes likewise emphasize the need for meaningful curricular change to be a program-level effort: “To respond effectively to the external societal and internal institutional pressures…changes cannot be limited to a specific course taught by a specific faculty member, no matter how exemplary it might otherwise be…. Rather, change will need to occur across these three fundamental and interrelated areas of educational

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

57

ineffectual and therefore not worthwhile. Rather, in discerning a path forward, it must be acknowledged that how, by whom, to what extent, and at what pace critical redesign can be accomplished depends on one’s departmental and institutional contexts, as well as one’s employment status. In the face of such challenges, where should one start? Start where you are. If you must create a unit on sustainability, include texts that present diverse positionalities and scaffolding that provokes discussion of environmental justice. When covering migration, upset the practice of bracketing off “minority voices” or setting migrant voices as respondents to “mainstream” public discourse and policy, rather than as the drivers of discourse speaking from the primary site of experience. At all course and design levels, resist the neat social categorizations of and within the dichotomous “C1” and “C2,” for this reorientation pushes beyond recognizing and engaging a “third space”26 to decentering and destabilizing the images of C1/L1 and the C2/L2 through which their respective (and sometimes shared) “Others” are imagined. If it is not yet feasible to diversify a curriculum, one can still begin introducing a decolonizing perspective, for instance, by raising the issue of canonicity as theme for critical analysis, not a tacit given. Ask students why they think a given literary text has become standard reading in German curricula; encourage comparisons within their own schooling backgrounds; invite them to speculate about who decides which works become canonical and why; introduce them to the history of Germanistik and German Studies, not just the authors and text that have come to order the field, in order to let students challenge the seeming naturalness of it shape. This line of inquiry extends questions of power and authority by probing the dynamics that inform how and why other works, voices or narratives are relegated to the margins or even full absent. I mention strategies concerning canonicity to highlight the importance of first shifting the intellectual goals and foundational analytical practice: (a) a programmatic mission statement that is anchored in collegiate humanistic learning, (b) an intellectually stimulating content- and language-integrated curriculum sequenced to enable the attainment of the specified goals over the 4 years of the program, and (c) language- and content learning-oriented assessment to provide publically available evidence for student achievement and advocacy for the program” (2017, p. 425). 26 On the “third space” in postcolonial theory and in foreign language education, see Bhabha (1993) and Kramsch (2009, p. 239), respectively.

58  A. RANDALL

frameworks of a curriculum. This by no means implies that diversifying cultural content should be secondary or could be left aside. Rather, the intent is to show that even in cases where one is unable to immediately or robustly diversify the texts used for teaching, one can still begin to shift habits of mind in a direction of decolonization by raising awareness of the existence and implications of complex positionalities and power differentials within the texts we already teach. Ultimately, just as diversifying a curriculum is insufficient without decolonization, a fully decolonized German Studies curriculum must also be robustly diverse in its cultural representations.

4  Keine Ruhe bewahren. Weitermachen! This essay’s express intent is to identify the stakes and practical considerations of diversifying and decolonizing German Studies. But it should also serve as an invitation to further discussion, idea- and resource-sharing, and encouragement to those seeking to infuse the German Studies curriculum with more diverse perspectives and social criticism. The project of diversifying and decolonizing the curriculum requires us to decenter the dominant cultural narratives in our inherited materials and intellectual habits. Concomitantly, we must provide students with the linguistic tools with which to engage social justice issues in “transcultural” comparison by considering stakeholders within a Germanspeaking sphere that is anything but homogeneous and monolithic. As we broaden student horizons for what “learning German” covers and conveys, we also must adjust the stance—the attitudes and analytical abilities—we want students to take vis-à-vis other cultures and their own. That is the decolonizing project that activates the value of this paradigm shift as it aligns with a reinvigorated humanities mission. Such a curricular transformation will be an enormous undertaking. Though instructors are positioned at different kinds of institutions that value teaching scholarship in uneven ways, to change habits of mind within our field we must dedicate space within our scholarly work to design, present, and publish empirical research and theoretical interventions, not only to share resources but to substantiate the legitimacy and viability of this turn. Attending or presenting at professional conferences and professional development workshops, maintaining informal, in-person and online communities, and getting involved in national and regional organizational leadership are all important avenues for

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

59

advocacy and support. However you choose to join in, do join in, for what a diversified and decolonized German Studies curriculum could offer, the world needs now more than ever.

References Adler, Eric. 2017. “When Humanists Undermine the Humanities.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 14. Accessed 15 March 2019. http:// www.chronicle.com/article/When-Humanists-Undermine-the/240067. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), et al. 2011 [orig. 1996]. World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. Accessed 13 April 2018. www.actfl.org/files/public/StandardsforFLLexecsumm_rev.pdf. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), et al. 2012 [1986]. “ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines.” Accessed 13 April 2018. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiency Guidelines2012_FINAL.pdf. Anderson, Lorin W., and Lauren A. Sosniak. 1994. Bloom’s Taxonomy: A 40-Year Retrospective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bauman, Richard, and Charles L. Briggs. 2003. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Berman, Russell A. 2011. “The Real Foreign Language Crisis.” American Association of University Professors, September–October. Accessed 14 April 2018. https://www.aaup.org/article/real-language-crisis#.WTmnUDOZPR0. Bernhardt, Elizabeth, and Russell Berman. 1999. “From German 1 to German Studies 001: A Chronicle of Curricular Reform.” Die Unterrichtspraxis 32 (1): 22–31. Bhabha, Homi J. 1993. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc. Bourdieu, Pierre, and John B. Thompson. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bruner, Jerome S. 1960. The Process of Education. Cambridge: The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Byrnes, Heidi. 2002. “The Role of Task and Task-Based Assessment in a Content-Oriented Collegiate Foreign Language Curriculum.” Language Testing 19 (4): 419–37. Byrnes, Heidi, and Susanne Kord. 2002. “Developing Literacy and Literacy Competence: Challenges for Foreign Language Departments.” In SLA and the Literature Classroom: Fostering Dialogues, edited by Holly Tucker and Virginia Scott, 31–69. Boston: Heinle Thomson.

60  A. RANDALL Byrnes, Heidi, and Katherine A. Sprang. 2004. “Fostering Advanced L2 Literacy: A Genre-Based, Cognitive Approach.” In Advanced Foreign Language Learning: A Challenge to College Programs, edited by Heidi Byrnes and Hiram H. Maxim, 47–85. Boston: Heinle Thomson. Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Galloway, Vicki. 1999. “Bridges and Boundaries: Growing the Cross-Cultural Mind.” In Language Learners of Tomorrow: Process and Promise, edited by Margaret A. Kassen, 152–87. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co. Hake, Sabine, ed. 2016. “The GSA Fortieth Anniversary Issue.” German Studies Review 39 (3). Halverson, Rachel J., and Carol A. Costabile-Heming. 2015. Taking Stock of German Studies in the United States: The New Millennium. New York: Camden House. Hammer, Judith, and Janet Swaffar. 2012. “Assessing Strategic Cultural Competency: Holistic Approaches to Student Learning Through Media.” The Modern Language Journal 962: 209–33. Jauss, Hans Robert. 1970. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” New Literary History 2 (1): 7–37. Kern, Richard. 2000. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, Claire. 2009. “Third Culture and Language Education.” In Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language Teaching and Learning, edited by Vivian Cook and Li Wei, 233–54. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Kroskrity, Paul V. 2003. Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Lee, Horng-Yi. 2014. “Inquiry-Based Teaching in Second and Foreign Language Teaching.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5 (6): 1236–44. Lombrozo, Tania. 2015. “The Humanities: What’s the Big Idea?” NPR online, October 26. Accessed 15 March 2019. https://www.npr.org/ sections/13.7/2015/10/26/452003593/the-humanities-what-s-the-big-idea. Marcus, George E. 1998. Ethnography Through Thick and Thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Marcus, George E., and Michael M. J. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McCumber, John. 2016. “How Humanities Can Help Fix the World.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 2. Accessed 14 April 2018. https:// www.chronicle.com/article/How-Humanities-Can-Help-Fix/237955.

3  HABITS OF MIND, HABITS OF HEART: CULTIVATING HUMANITY … 

61

Modern Languages Association (MLA) Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. 2007. “Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World.” Profession 12: 234–245. National Council of State Supervisors of Languages (NCSSFL) and American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), et al. 2017. “NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements.” Accessed 14 April 2018. https:// www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/ncssfl-actfl-can-dostatements. Newfield, Christopher. 2016. The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Newfield, Christopher, and Ronald Strickland. 1995. After Political Correctness: The Humanities and Society in the 1990s. Boulder: Westview Press. Nussbaum, Martha C. 1997. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 2010. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Paisani, Kate, Heather Willis Allen, and Beatrice Dupuy. 2015. A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign Language Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Randall, Amanda. 2017. “Assembled Thoughts on the ‘Why’ and ‘How’ of Diversifying and Decolonializing German Studies,” July 6. Accessed 15 March 2019. https://diversityingermancurriculum.weebly.com/ddgc-blog/ assembled-thoughts-on-the-why-and-how-of-diversifying-and-decolonializinggerman-studies. Redmann, Jennifer, and Kathryn Sederberg. 2017. “The First World War in the Literacy-Focused Classroom: Teaching German Through Cultural Themes.” Die Unterrichtspraxis 50 (1): 45–66. Accessed 14 April 2018. http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tger.12021/full. Ryshina-Pankova, Marianna, and Heidi Byrnes. 2017. “Embracing the Language-Educational Challenge in FL-Departments: Reflections on Ways Forward.” The Modern Language Journal 101 (2): 424–27. Samudzi, Zoé. 2016. “We Need a Decolonized, Not a ‘Diverse,’ Education.” Harlot Media. Updated 29 March 2016. Accessed 14 April 2018. Archived http://archive.is/xlrnA. Smith, Sidonie. 2015. Manifesto for the Humanities: Transforming Doctoral Education in Good Enough Times. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sørensen, Asger. 2015. “From Critique of Ideology to Politics: Habermas on Bildung.” Ethics and Education 10: 252–70. Stover, Justin. 2018. “There Is No Case for the Humanities.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 4. https://www.chronicle.com/article/There-IsNo-Case-for-the/242724.

62  A. RANDALL Swaffar, Janet K., and Katherine Arens. 2005. Remapping the Foreign Language Curriculum: An Approach Through Multiple Literacies. New York: Modern Language Association of America. Swaffar, Janet K., and Per Urlaub, eds. 2016. Transforming Postsecondary Foreign Language Teaching in the United States. Dordrecht: Springer.

CHAPTER 4

Social Justice in the Language Curriculum: Interrogating the Goals and Outcomes of Language Education in College Magda Tarnawska Senel

1  The Rationale for Rethinking Goals and Outcomes of Language Education The language classroom has the capacity to foster open-mindedness, inclusivity, empathy, and civic engagement. These educational outcomes are arguably among the most needed in the twenty-first century. However, these outcomes are missing from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. Admittedly, the Standards have been very helpful in advocating for language learning by emphasizing the link between language and culture and by encouraging comparisons, connections, and participation in communities locally and globally. However, in light of our new political and social realities, we need to rethink and broaden them. The Standards are introduced as “a roadmap to guide learners to develop competence to communicate effectively and interact with

M. Tarnawska Senel (*)  University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_4

63

64  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL

cultural competence to participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world” (2015, p. 11) and emphasize “the development of 21st century skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity” (2015, p. 17). While developing a clear road map to world-readiness is a worthy endeavor, we need to ask ourselves, what it means, exactly, to be “ready” for the world today? What does it mean to “develop competence to communicate effectively” in a world in which civic engagement and action, sometimes even civil courage, become an imperative, if we want to live up to the ideals of democracy, justice for all, and basic human rights? How do we teach students to “interact with cultural competence,” when the influx of refugees into the communities around the world creates new realities and challenges? How can students learn to meaningfully “participate in multilingual communities at home and abroad” without being aware of privilege, intersectional identities, and systems of oppression? What are the practical applications of language and twenty-first-century skills in the world of #metoo, #BlackLivesMatter, and the rise of the extreme right? These are difficult questions and by not engaging them we miss an important opportunity to realize the untapped potential of language education as a place of inspiration and action. In this article, I suggest some ways of rethinking language teaching at the collegiate level and connecting it to the realities facing us today, not by adding new content to our existing courses, but rather by restructuring our curricula, and reconceptualizing German programs in ways that are more inclusive and expansive. I hope this article sparks a discussion of the approaches, goals, and place of German language courses at the colleges and universities today and helps generate new ideas on possible curricular changes and classroom practices.

2  Moving Beyond Marketplace Ideologies The vast educational potential of teaching languages has been limited by what Osborn refers to as “marketplace ideologies” (2006, p. 2). Departments of world languages and cultures can definitely do much more than advocate professional or monetary benefits of speaking an additional language because they are uniquely positioned to provide students with critical skills to produce and interpret meanings from culturally and linguistically particular perspectives and help them identify assumptions and values that inform our communications and

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

65

interactions. Osborn points to another alternative for language departments: namely, the embrace of social justice and human rights causes (2006). To this end, we can employ the often-overlooked potential of language and culture studies to help us understand how subjectivities are created and how they are entangled in the workings of power, mechanisms of oppression, and identity categories. For the same reasons, language departments can engage in the efforts to decolonize curricula, that is, to interrogate the majority discourses and to include marginalized voices not as an additive component, but as an integral part of the knowledge about the world, with which we ask our students to engage. Educators of languages in the post-2016-elections era—marked not only by the conflation of facts, opinions, prejudices, and manufacturing of false information, but also by the rise of racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and criminalization of immigration—bear a responsibility to teach through the prisms of social justice, cultural studies, and activism. Thus, language education should include what Bell (2007) defines as the aims of social justice education, namely, “to enable people to develop the critical analytical tools necessary to understand oppression and their own socialization within oppressive systems, and to develop a sense of agency and capacity to interrupt and change oppressive patterns and behaviors in themselves and in the institutions and communities of which they are a part” (2007, p. 2). Complex spaces and transformative potential that language education can occupy emerge when language learning overlaps with a development of transcultural awareness, pursuit of humanistic inquiry, and theoretical and socially engaged analysis of cultural studies that are followed by congruent practices of everyday life.

3  Making Change Happen Transforming the mainstream perception that language education is redundant will require a collaborative effort of language educators to adjust our curricula and modes of teaching to specific local contexts. For this change to occur, the syllabus and the language classroom have to become politicized spaces. I suggest that language educators consider engaging in deliberately political teaching that is informed by cultural studies (interdisciplinary focus, social critique, pressing political issues, and analysis of popular culture and daily practices), intersectional feminism (focus on intersections of identity categories that

66  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL

cannot be studied or challenged in isolation, but have to be understood as overlapping social identities and systems of oppression), and critical pedagogy (education as a means to a just society and to the emancipation of underprivileged social groups). Such teaching aligns with hooks’ approach to education as “teaching to transgress” against “systems of domination—racism, sexism, class exploitation, and imperialism” (1994, pp. 27–28), encourages a “rethinking of ways of knowing, a deconstruction of old epistemologies” (hooks 1994, p. 29), and strives to help students understand the cultural, political, and historical forces that have shaped lives of different individuals and communities, ultimately encouraging them to become agents of change, instead of conformists to systems that promote injustice and privilege.1 Given the inextricable relationship between language and culture, the fields of language studies are well-positioned to introduce transcultural perspectives and encourage students to rethink issues of ability, age, citizenship, class, ethnicity, economic status, gender, gender identity, nationality, race, religion, and sexual orientation because these identity markers and systems of oppression are imbedded in language. Teaching with the outlined considerations in mind is not about adding new content to the existing courses, but rather about rebuilding our curricula on a new foundation, which entails rethinking our priorities, streamlining our courses, and reconceptualizing German programs in ways that are more inclusive and expansive. I propose considering the following steps to generate a discussion about possible new frameworks, approaches, and outcomes for language courses: (1) embracing critical and social justice pedagogies, (2) adapting cultural studies approaches and theoretical frameworks of various progressive fields of study (e.g., critical multiculturalism, critical race theory, disability studies, indigenous studies, intersectional feminism, and queer studies) to language education, (3) developing curricula not with an exclusive focus on the target language and culture, but with attention to both broader global contexts and specifically local issues, and (4) integrating new goal areas into the existing model of the five C’s. These four steps are closely related and their elements deeply intertwined. They can be taken separately or in combination, and not necessarily in the order presented.

1 A similarly worded passage is a part of my profile on the website of the Department of Germanic Languages at UCLA.

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

67

Examining these four steps separately and in clear-cut distinctions is not always possible. The following discussion includes all these elements but sometimes juxtaposes them without drawing arbitrary distinctions. For example, borrowing from critical and social justice pedagogies often entails adapting cultural studies approaches to language learning and integrating new goal areas (that will be explored later in this article), such as Criticality (critical stance toward knowledge and oneself) and Complexity (of cultures as opposed to stereotyping uniformity).

4  Theoretical Foundations Critical and social justice pedagogies developed in the field of education over the last sixty years provide a fertile ground for the conceptualization of new approaches in language instruction. Specifically, my curriculum design for German language courses and classroom practice have been heavily informed by theoretical models developed by Paulo Freire, bell hooks, Henry Giroux, and Sonia Nieto. Critical pedagogy is a teaching philosophy and practice that aims at confronting all forms of social oppression by raising critical awareness of social injustices and systemic domination and by challenging the status quo. It is based on the premise that education should not only focus on students’ intellectual development, but also include students’ individual stories and an analysis of larger systems in which these experiences are situated. In other words, education should embrace both the intellectual development and emancipatory potential of students. By helping students connect the knowledge to their lived experiences, educators empower students to initiate a social change. Exposing systems of oppression, ending systemic discrimination, and alleviating human suffering should be an important dimension of pedagogy. These foundational principles were acticulated for the first time in 1970 by Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1996), in which he juxtaposes “the banking concept of education,” based on the hierarchical relationship between students and the authority figure (teacher) who “deposits” knowledge into students’ heads with “the problem-posing concept of education,” that is dialogical by nature and in which students participate in the ­process of knowledge production (1996, pp. 52–67). The focus on students’ intellectual autonomy while engaging in a learning process that is deeply meaningful and inclusive for all students has been taken up by Freire’s followers, some of whom combined

68  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL

socially engaged teaching with other emancipatory movements, such as feminism, critical race theory, queer studies, or disability studies. hooks brings intersectionality and critical pedagogy together in her call for engaged pedagogy and education as a practice of freedom. She emphasizes the complexity of each individual experience, intersectionality of identity and systems of oppression, and the role of Black feminist pedagogies in resisting racism, white supremacy, and sexism. For hooks, teaching is a form of activism and as such is dynamic, empowering, and dialectical. Most important of all, it encourages both the teacher and the student to understand and challenge the systems of oppression and move beyond what is still considered a “traditional classroom,” in which students “receive” the knowledge from the teacher, e.g., by validating students’ experiences and knowledge. In her own words: “I celebrate teaching that enables transgressions—a movement against and beyond boundaries. It is that movement which makes education the practice of freedom” (hooks 1994, p. 12). Freire’s principles of education as a means for social change and hooks’ engagement with social justice pedagogies through the lens of Black feminist thought have been further politicized and anchored in contemporary political climate by Giroux, who defines pedagogy as “a moral and political practice” (2011, p. 71) and sees education as “a form of political intervention in the world and […] capable of creating the possibilities for social transformation” (2011, p. 72). Giroux emphasizes the responsibility teachers bear to educate critically thinking citizens, who see protecting democracy and creating equity in society as an imperative. To achieve such goals, teachers must “connect the practice of classroom teaching with the operation of power in the larger society and […] provide the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power accountable” (Giroux 2011, p. 101). For Giroux, critical pedagogy applied consciously by educators is the main antidote to the mind-numbing and ideologically driven mainstream culture and entertainment that value commodities and profit more than human life and civic engagement. Incorporating all of the above principles of critical pedagogy, Nieto focuses on social justice as core of education, which she defines as “a philosophy, an approach, and actions that embody treating all people with fairness, respect, dignity, and generosity” (2012, p. 12). Nieto outlines four crucial components of social justice education:

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

69

(1) It challenges, confronts, and disrupts misconceptions, untruths, and stereotypes that lead to structural inequality and discrimination based on race, social class, gender, and other social and human differences […]; (2) […] [It provides] all students with resources necessary to learn to their full potential […]; (3) […] [It draws] on the talents and strengths that students bring to their education […]; (4) […] [It creates] a learning environment that promotes critical thinking and supports agency for social change […]. (2012, p. 12)

Nieto’s principles of social justice education focus on two domains: curriculum (what we teach) and classroom practices (how we teach). Scholars and practitioners of critical pedagogy emphasize that social justice (and teaching according to these principles) is “both a goal and a process” (Bell 2016, p. 3). It is a goal because we want our students to develop critical consciousness, critical thinking, and the ability to connect individual experiences to the systems of power in society. It is a process because it requires that our classroom is a democratic space, in which students are challenged in a safe and supportive environment, and all students have the same opportunity to succeed. The distinction between “what” and “how” or “goal” and “process” aligns with the distinction between a critically diverse, decolonized (and decolonizing) curriculum and an inclusive classroom environment, to put it simply the distinction between diversity and inclusivity.2

5  The New Model for Language Education Osborn (2006) and Glynn et al. (2014) combine social justice frameworks with language education. Drawing on theories of critical pedagogy and social justice education, they provide examples, activities, and suggestions for curricular changes. Glynn et al. demonstrate how to adapt any textbook to a social justice framework by identifying “the point of entry” and “take-away understandings” (2014, pp. 37–46). Osborn proposes “four thematic pillars […]: identity, social architecture, language choices, and activism” and themes to align with these pillars (e.g., affiliation, conflict, discrimination, ideology, history, power

2 The distinction between diversity and inclusivity was brought up during the EPIC seminar (Excellence in Pedagogy and Innovative Classrooms) I attended as a Mellon Fellow in Fall 2017 at UCLA.

70  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL

relations, resistance) for the language curriculum (2006, pp. 61–62). These authors agree that a social justice angle aligns with the Standards. Although I find such an alignment possible, I also contend that we need to revisit the Standards and broaden them by including goal areas directly related to social justice and critical pedagogy. The existing model of the five C’s developed in the Standards consists of five areas included in language education: Communication, Cultures, Comparisons, Connections, and Communities. I argue that integrating the following new goal areas to the existing model of the five C’s—Criticality, Complexity, Contexts, Connectedness, and Civic Engagement—could better prepare students to confront many challenges facing us today.

6  Criticality: From Critical Thinking to Critical Being The concept of Criticality in higher education was advanced by Barnett (1997), who argues that critical thinking as the outcome of higher education should be replaced by a more holistic concept of critical being that encompasses not only the ability to think critically about concepts, ideas, and knowledge in general (critical reason), but also the ability to think critically about oneself (critical self-reflection), and the courage to act on one’s convictions in congruence with one’s critical reason and self-­ reflection (critical action). Even though critical thinking is an integral part of postsecondary education, Barnett claims that critical self-reflection and critical action have not been practiced much. Language departments are no exception. According to Barnett, critical self-reflection allows us to see the discourses and ideologies at work in the construction of our own subjectivity and enables us to “free ourselves from ideological delusion” (1997, p. 97). As a result, we can “embark on an emancipatory self-construction” and reach “emancipation and self-empowerment” (Barnett 1997, p. 101). In the long run, the outcome of this process allows students “by means of their own powers of self-reflection through their lifespan, [to] come increasingly into themselves, maintaining their critical distance from the world around them while acting purposively in it” (Barnett 1997, p. 101). Critical action is a result of critical reason and critical self-reflection. It is “not blind behaviour, but is informed by […] knowledge” and entails “taking up a stance” in such a way that it conveys the

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

71

message: “Here, I stand. This is the authentic me. This is what I believe” (Barnett 1997, p. 1). In addition, critical action “possesses emancipatory potential” and is “intended to bring about an effect in the world” (Barnett 1997, p. 82). Beginning and intermediate language courses are ideally suited for critical self-reflection as the units and vocabulary presented in textbooks are often focused on talking about oneself, one’s family, interests, habits, study, etc. Additional activities can guide students to deeper reflect on their identity and position within various institutional structures and society in general. For example, the Identity Chart activity3 that I have used in my courses gives students the opportunity to reflect on the aspects of their identity that are most important to them. It consists of students writing their name and drawing a circle around it with several lines going out of the circle in different directions. Each line symbolizes one identity category (e.g., gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, university affiliation, socioeconomic status, visible or invisible disability, etc.). In a mixture of group discussions and engagement with the whole class, students explore intersections of identity categories, self-definition vs. perception by others, stereotypes, privilege, and oppression.4 By engaging in this activity, students start what is hopefully going to become an ongoing reflection on the positionality of their identities and how it influences their understanding of the world. I use the Identity Chart activity at the beginning of the term because it sets a tone for the course, helps instructors learn about their students in a way that permits designing inclusive materials, and creates a sense of community in a much deeper way than a regular ice-breaker would.

7  Complexity: The Intricacies of Teaching Culture While Criticality focuses on the student and their ability to engage knowledge, self, and the world through critical reflection and action, the second proposed goal area, Complexity, scrutinizes a particular area of knowledge that students develop while taking language courses, namely, 3 The Identity Chart activity is available in different versions online. I have adapted the versions available on the website Facing History and Ourselves and in Glynn et al., pp. 14–15. 4 For specific questions see Glynn et al. (2014, pp. 14–15). For a sample identity chart see “Identity Charts.”

72  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL

culture. Focusing on the Complexity of each culture will help us not only avoid essentializing and stereotyping, but also uncover the mechanisms of power and privilege operating in each society. We might consider for our courses, for example, a transition that has been characterized by Quijada Cerecer as moving from a focus on culture as static and monolithic toward culture as dynamic; from analysis of individuals and their actions as the central level of analysis toward an analysis of social groups and institutional structures; and from celebrating difference toward the teaching about oppression and active agency in resistance as a democratic right and responsibility. (2010, p. 153)

Achieving such a transition seems possible in language courses if they highlight “socio-political awareness and critical reflection” (Osborn 2006, p. 60). Very useful in thinking about teaching Complexity of cultures is Kubota’s critique of the notion of culture in the Standards. Her main points of critique are homogenous and static view of culture that overlooks its diversity and fluidity, erroneous assumption “that there is a ‘correct’ cultural knowledge […] that reflects the authentic ‘insider’s’ perspectives,” and overlooking the political and ideological forces at work in the construction of cultural knowledge (2003, pp. 70–73). To transcend binary thinking of “us vs. them,” “similar vs. different,” and “correct vs. incorrect” that supports exceptionalism, essentializing, stereotyping, or exoticizing among many other distorted views of the Self and the Other, Kubota proposes a four D’s model of teaching culture that emphasizes descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) understandings of culture, diversity within each culture (e.g., variations based on ability, age, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc., as well as the notions of hybridity and diaspora), the dynamic (as opposed to static and fixed) view of culture, and the discursive nature of culture, “a notion that our knowledge about culture is invented by discourses, which requires us to understand plurality of meaning as well as power and politics behind cultural definition” (2003, p. 75).5 To illustrate this point, our Teaching Assistants6 developed a unit on stereotypes for a beginning German course based on a 2010 Aldi-Süd 5 Also

referenced in Osborn (2006, pp. 60–61). Avetic and Jamie Zelechowski.

6 Sandy

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

73

promotional pamphlet advertising “typical” US products for the 4th of July. Through a series of activities, students explore items depicted in the pamphlet as “typically American.” In addition to the products marketed to Aldi customers, such as “Hot Dogs,” “Röst-Zwiebeln,” “Hashbrowns-Kartoffelpfanne,” “Erdnusscreme,” and “Jelly Beans,” the background images are the most telling elements of this representation of the US culture. In addition to the obvious landmarks and symbols such as the White House, the Statue of Liberty, and the US flag, the background images display a “Welcome to Las Vegas” sign, dice, casino tokens, playing cards, baseball, cowboys and cows, corn, exclusively fairskinned and fair-haired children, as well as napkins decorated with a confederate flag. Inevitably, students engage with the pitfalls of representing cultures voiced by Kubota such as a homogenous and rigid view of culture, selective representations that accommodate an underlying agenda, and sweeping generalizations.

8  Contexts: Global Frameworks and Local Issues My third proposed C, Contexts, reaches beyond the classroom, like the Communities goal area in the Standards, but has a broader scope and a deeper meaning. I propose widening our focus to include both larger global contexts and specifically local issues in discussing culture in the language classroom beyond the exclusive concentration on the target culture. For example, contemporary Germany cannot be discussed without the context of the EU and the influx of the refugees from the Middle East and Africa, which in turn invites a discussion of the new asylum laws in the US and the question of undocumented immigrants in our local contexts, which in my case is Los Angeles and a large number of DACA students at the UCLA. Similarly, a discussion of the Day of German Unity on October 3rd invites a larger exploration of politics and discourses of national holidays in general. In my German language courses, I incorporate a discussion of the Columbus Day, including a 2017 decision of the Los Angeles City Council to remove Columbus Day from the city calendar and replace it with Indigenous Peoples Day. In this context, inclusion of holidays and celebrations that are important to the individual students in my classroom cannot be lost in the discussion of “typically German” holidays. Getting to know the unique group of students in each classroom is necessary, if we want to engage in culturally responsive teaching,

74  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL

acknowledge all “students’ backgrounds and abilities,” and “ensure that all students are in the picture” (Glynn et al. 2014, pp. 16–17). Referencing specifically local contexts and adapting curriculum to the students in the classroom constitutes one of the pillars of critical and social justice pedagogies: “it is students’ sociopolitical and historical experiences that serve as a foundation for grounding the [teacherstudent] relationship and forging a curriculum” (Quijada Cerecer et al. 2010, p. 155). Osborn advances the notion of “macrocontextualization” (2000, p. 114; 2006, p. 10; Reagan and Osborn 2002, pp. 71–72) of language programs that is based on the assumption that each language curriculum must take into consideration and incorporate “the local, regional, national, and global contexts in which […] [they are] situated. The contexts include social, political, historical, and ethical considerations that vary considerably from classroom to classroom” (Osborn 2006, p. 10). Teachers at various institutions are aware that engaging, for example, issues of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation requires very different preparation, class activities, and considerations in different contexts. Similarly, such elements as demographics, geography, economic situation, etc. will determine, at least partially, what and how we teach. Giroux sums up this principle as follows: “pedagogy can never be treated as a fixed set of principles and practices that can be applied indiscriminately across a variety of pedagogical sites. Pedagogy must always be contextually defined, allowing it to respond specifically to the conditions, formations, and problems that arise in various sites in which education takes place” (2011, p. 75). Students learn, make sense of the world, and are motivated within their specific contexts. Therefore, we need context-sensitive and location-specific pedagogy rooted in the understanding of local sociocultural and political particularities. Additionally, “macrocontextualization” addresses questions of inclusion, sustainability of language programs, and socially engaged teaching and it might provide some answers as to the future of language instruction at the collegiate level, which for Osborn depends “on the ability […] to connect both curriculum and instruction to the individual societal setting within which education in language takes place” (2000, p. 114). At the same time, language teaching cannot be divorced from global frameworks. Students can develop linguistic proficiency and crosscultural awareness within multiple relevant contexts that go beyond the narrow nation-state focus, which for example in a German language

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

75

classroom comprise cultures of German-speaking countries, transnational perspectives on these cultures, multicultural and diverse communities of German-speaking people, German colonial legacy, relationships between Germany, the EU, the US, and other countries, as well as the migration of refugees around the world. We can connect our curricula to global and local contexts by (1) selecting German primary sources addressing a specific sociopolitical topic in the German context (literary texts, films, talk shows, blog posts, songs, news broadcasts), (2) designing activities that help students understand the issue on a linguistic level, as well as analyze and interpret the materials; (3) choosing a comparative element related to the US or any other local contexts; and (4) guiding students to make connections between the topic and their lives (such as taking a stance, researching nonprofit organizations or grassroots movements, discussing implications of not addressing the issue, personal responsibility, civic engagement, etc.). Ideally, a lesson unit scaffolded in this way would be followed by a thematically connected service learning or another action-oriented component.

9  Connectedness: Where Cosmopolitanism and Empathy Intersect The forces of globalization combined with the growing wealth gap and the devastation triggered by wars and climate change cause unprecedented movements of people around the world in their privileged forms such as tourism, migration of highly trained workforces, and business travel as well as in forms that reveal the mechanisms of oppression and cruelty such as displacement, expulsions, and migration of refugees. These connections, as tangled and complex as they are, might in some cases awaken the simple, yet often disregarded or unreachable, awareness of Connectedness among human beings. I use the word Connectedness to imply concern for, empathy and compassion toward, as well as solidarity with other human beings that are rooted in the mandates of human rights, justice, and cosmopolitanism. Connectedness, which Quijada Cerecer defines as social literacy can be described as “providing students with opportunities to critique and analyze how their role and existence in our global society are interconnected with others’ lives” (2010, p. 156). This statement, in turn, is reminiscent of Barnett’s notion of critical self-reflection.

76  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL

As Hobbel and Chapman state: “Building solidarity must come […] not merely from an affirmation of sameness and difference, but rather from a willingness to fully engage the experiences and lifeways of others” (2010, p. 243), which also translates into the “ability to connect with others across lines of race, class, gender, and sexuality” (2010, p. 240) and brings us together in our shared humanity. Goldstein advocates the power of experiential learning in fostering empathy (Connectedness), questioning assumptions, and recognizing misconceptions (2016, pp. 83–97). Language educators use a wide range of games, simulation activities, role plays, etc. in their courses, and what might be missing is a deliberate social justice and empathy angle of these activities. Goldstein focuses on the educational benefits of the Barnga card game simulation, which “fosters a new understanding of complex social phenomena such as intercultural clashes, […] helps to nurture […] ethical attitudes and behavior, […] [and] can initiate the critical analysis of structural discrimination as well as empathy for those who struggle with it” (2016, p. 89). In my language courses, I have used various interactive activities focusing on identity categories, privilege, and systems of marginalization, like the Identity Chart described in the previous section, with similar results. One of my students’ comments referring to the Identity Chart activity is a reminder that, indeed, we might need to rethink our curricula and practices: “I really appreciate your teaching philosophy of incorporating what is really important: each person’s own identity and acceptance among people. I think that made the class more than just a language class, and I think that is crucial to experience as a student.” Many students enrolling in language courses expect to take “just a language class” that does not incorporate “what is really important” and we need to change this preconception. Giroux reminds us that “[a]ny viable approach to critical pedagogy suggests taking seriously […] maps of meaning, affective investments, and sedimented desires that enable students to connect their own lives and everyday experiences to what they learn” (2011, p. 82). It is also Giroux, who emphasizes the central role of critical pedagogy in providing students with the skills, knowledge, and authority they need to inquire and act upon what it means to live in a substantive democracy, to recognize anti-democratic forms of power, and to fight deeply rooted injustices in a society and world founded on systemic economic, racial, and gender inequalities. (2011, p. 72)

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

77

I successfully included several books in the German language curriculum that support the goal of social literacy, empathy, and connectedness, for example, Akim rennt by Claude K. Dubois7 and Der Traum von Olympia by Reinhard Kleist.8 These books thematize different aspects of the global refugee migration and possibilities (or lack thereof) of starting a new life. As such, they are embedded in larger global contexts. At the same time, they can be effectively macrocontextualized by drawing connections between European and US policies and treatment of refugees, Islamophobia on both continents, undocumented immigrants and sanctuary cities in the US, militarization of borders, migration routes, and responses of local populations. Ultimately, these books combined with carefully designed activities have the potential to enhance empathy, compassion, and solidarity with people fleeing armed conflicts.

10  Civic Engagement: Educating Critically Thinking Citizens The Civic Engagement goal area closely aligns with social justice pedagogy, which emphasizes action as an integral component of education that is “responsive to the deepest problems and conflicts of our time” and “provides the formative culture that produces engaged citizens and makes social action and democracy possible” (Giroux 2011, pp. 8–9). It is also the progressive fields of study (e.g., critical multiculturalism, critical race theory, disability studies, indigenous studies, intersectional feminism, and queer studies) that emphasize the connection between theory and action. While empowering marginalized students through critical engagement with knowledge is an imperative, some scholars pointed out recently that engaging economically and racially advantaged students, mostly of the “suburban and urban elite” (Swalwell 2013), in the interrogation of Whiteness, privilege, and mechanisms of systemic oppression is necessary for social change. Swalwell admits that while it is unlikely for the privileged group of students to “extract themselves entirely from the

7 This book choice was inspired by Erika Berroth. Adapting Akim rennt for teaching was a collaborative effort by Kathryn Sederberg and Magda Tarnawska Senel. 8 This book choice was inspired by Faye Stewart.

78  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL

contexts that privilege them, it is possible to imagine an education that asks them to think about what kind of society they want and what that vision requires of them in their current positions” (2013, p. 18). At the end, the goal of such education “is to develop awareness or mindfulness of the social and political factors that create oppression, to analyze patterns that sustain that oppression and the interests it serves, and to take action to work democratically with others to reimagine and remake the world in the interest of all” (Bell 2016, p. 16). A subgoal area of Civic Engagement is Civil Courage that has been defined as “brave behavior accompanied by anger and indignation which intends to enforce societal and ethical norms without considering one’s own social costs” (Greitemeyer et al. 2007). Barnett includes the famous image of a student facing a line of tanks at the Tiananmen Square to illustrate what critical action is—taking a stance for one’s beliefs that were developed in the process of critically engaging ideas, oneself, and the world (1997, p. 1). Cultivating Civil Courage in a classroom setting does not mean encouraging students to risk their lives, but it entails an integration of social justice issues into the curriculum, equipping students with cognitive and rhetorical tools to engage with these concerns, as well as providing space for critical self-reflection and collaborative work. I do not propose turning all students into activists, but it is an imperative for all students taking language courses, even at the introductory level, to discuss such issues as, for example, identities being socially constructed, intersecting, and context-specific; the relationship between individual marginalization and larger systems of oppression; what constitutes sexist and racist attitudes and why; what cultural appropriation and essentializing are and why they are not acceptable. I find incorporating these topics crucial, even if they are addressed only briefly and with the main goal of raising awareness because for some students the language classroom might be the only space, in which they will ever engage with these issues in a critical way. On the learning outcomes level, working toward the goals proposed by Hobbel and Chapman: “[r]ecognition of one’s place in the world, [r]ecognition of political contexts and institutional structures, [b]elief that […] one can promote change, [a]bility to pose solutions and organize around issues of concern, [a]bility to connect with others across lines of race, class, gender, and sexuality” (2010, p. 240) can take place within the objectives of language acquisition, communication, and exploring culture, if we incorporate carefully chosen authentic texts, films,

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

79

and images and consciously apply social justice pedagogy principles. Consciousness-raising activities, such as privilege checklists, support the Civic Engagement goal area and might simultaneously inspire action. They consist of a series of questions designed to reveal the oftenunacknowledged privileges of dominant groups and are easily adaptable to various classroom settings. Similarly, poems and songs provide a relatively easy point of entry to engaging social justice topics in language courses. Commitment to social justice pedagogy might require revisiting our expectations for the exclusive use of the target language in the beginning language classroom and an inclusion of short units in English that deepen students’ analysis and self-reflection related to the goals and outcomes outlined in this article. Such an inclusion does not go against the grain of proficiency-oriented and communicative language teaching, but enhances the quality of the communication in the target language by providing additional context, insights, and depth. In his recently published book, VanPatten revisits communicative language teaching and reminds us that in order to engage in communicative language learning, students need to engage in “activities or tasks […] that encourage […] [them] to use language to learn about themselves and the world around them” (2017, p. 16). Adding short activities related to social justice issues in English and integrating them with topics introduced and tasks carried out in the target language will enhance their meaning and purpose beyond practicing language for its own sake. This chapter does not by any means provide a comprehensive outline of new goals and outcomes of language courses at the collegiate level. Rather, it points to a possible new direction of language education, one that I believe is both necessary and desirable within the larger contexts of the decline of the numbers of students learning languages, downsizing language departments, and current political climate.

References Barnett, Roland. 1997. Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham and Bristol: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Bell, Lee Anne. 2007. “Theoretical Foundations of Social Justice Education.” In Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Maurianne Adams and Lee Anne Bell, 2nd ed., 1–14. New York: Routledge.

80  M. TARNAWSKA SENEL ———. 2016. “Theoretical Foundations of Social Justice Education.” In Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Maurianne Adams and Lee Anne Bell, 3rd ed., 3–26. New York: Routledge. Dubois, Claude K. 2015. Akim rennt. Translated by Tobias Scheffel. Frankfurt am Main: Moritz. Freire, Paulo. 1996. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin. Giroux, Henry A. 2011. On Critical Pedagogy. New York: Bloomsbury. Glynn, Cassandra, et al. 2014. Words and Actions: Teaching Languages Through the Lens of Social Justice. Alexandria: ACTFL. Goldstein, David S. 2016. “Using the Barnga Card Game Simulation to Develop Cross-Cultural Thinking and Empathy.” In Race, Equity, and the Learning Environment: The Global Relevance of Critical and Inclusive Pedagogies in Higher Education, edited by Frank Tuitt, Chayla Haynes, and Saran Stewart, 83–97. Sterling: Stylus. Greitemeyer, Tobias, et al. 2007. “Civil Courage: Implicit Theories, Related Concepts, and Measurement.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 2 (2): Special Issue on Courage. Accessed 21 June 2018. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/1 0.1080/17439760701228789?scroll=top&needAccess=true. Hobbel, Nikola, and Thandeka K. Chapman. 2010. “Writing in Academic Genres: Is Social Justice a Learning Outcome?” In Social Justice Pedagogy Across the Curriculum: The Practice of Freedom, edited by Thandeka K. Chapman and Nikola Hobbel, 236–49. New York: Routledge. hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge. “Identity Charts.” Facing History and Ourselves. Accessed 23 October 2018. www. facinghistory.org/resource-library/teaching-strategies/identity-charts. Kleist, Reinhard. 2017. Der Traum von Olympia. Die Geschichte von Samia Yusuf Omar. Hamburg: Carlsen. Kubota, Ryuko. 2003. “Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture.” Japanese Language and Literature 37 (1, April): 67–87. Nieto, Sonia, and Patty Bode. 2012. Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education, 6th ed. Boston: Pearson. Osborn, Terry. 2000. Critical Reflection and the Foreign Language Classroom. Westport: Bergin & Garvey. ———. 2006. Teaching World Languages for Social Justice: A Sourcebook of Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reagan, Timothy G., and Terry Osborn. 2002. The Foreign Language Educator in Society: Toward a Critical Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

4  SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM … 

81

Quijada Cerecer, Patricia D., et  al. 2010. “Critical Multiculturalism. Transformative Educational Principles and Practices.” In Social Justice Pedagogy Across the Curriculum: The Practice of Freedom, edited by Thandeka K. Chapman and Nikola Hobbel, 144–63. New York: Routledge. Swalwell, Katy M. 2013. Educating Activist Allies: Social Justice Pedagogy with the Suburban and Urban Elite. New York: Routledge. VanPatten, Bill. 2017. While We’re on the Topic: BVP on Language, Acquisition, and Classroom Practice. Alexandria: ACTFL. World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. 2015. Alexandria: ACTFL.

CHAPTER 5

Decolonizing German Studies While Dissecting Race in the American Classroom Priscilla Layne

During the past twenty-five years, instructors of German have considered how changing demographics in the United States might potentially affect the status of German Studies on college campuses. Already in 1992, Ingeborg Henderson asserted that “our undergraduate and graduate programs must attract more minority students” if German programs are to survive (1992a, p. 4). But just how do German programs attract minority students? Henderson considered concrete changes faculty could implement in order to really make a difference in not only increasing the kinds of students who took German classes but also actively making these students feel comfortable in the classroom. Referencing James Anderson, Henderson identified four offenses typically made by faculty at “monocultural institutions” that make this work difficult. While two of these offenses have to do with how a white professor might interact with diverse student bodies (a failure to do away with stereotypical assumptions about students and a tendency to show deferential treatment to traditional students), the other two pitfalls specifically had to

P. Layne (*)  Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_5

83

84  P. LAYNE

do with course content: (1) a failure to “initiate, cross-gender, cross-racial, and cross-cultural teaching practices” (2) a failure to “question the Eurocentric emphasis within the curriculum” (1992b, p. 109). Moreover, as Marilyn Sephocle points out, one of the deterrents Students of Color have about taking German classes, whether in German or English, is the question of relevance. When minority students take a German class, they are often met with “the lack of support for study in a field deemed unsuitable and useless to their community,” nonminority students give them quizzical looks and society assumes they must be suffering from an identity crisis (Sephocle 1992, p. 184). While Sephocle’s findings stem from the 1990s, little has changed since. In this volatile political climate that is producing students who want to have conversations about race, gender, sexuality, class, citizenship, and (dis)ability, how do we ensure that German Studies is in dialogue with departments like Ethnic Studies and Women’s and Gender Studies rather than ignoring the powerful relevance of the work such departments do altogether and dismiss it as irrelevant to the work we do in our programs? In this essay, I will explain how I have used the format of a first-year seminar, “Germany and the Black Diaspora,” as a site of decolonization where I can recover marginalized narratives, decenter whiteness, and offer students multiple perspectives on Germany and on Black cultures.1 Decolonialization and decoloniality are terms that were introduced in the twenty-first century in an attempt to find new ways to combat the 1 In 1992, Leroy Hopkins wrote a proposal for expanding the German canon to include what he called “Afro-German Studies” (Hopkins 1992). In this proposal, Hopkins argues for the inclusion of more literature written by and about Afro-Germans, in part, because of the diversity it brings to the German canon. “Afro-German” is a term coined by African American feminist scholar Audre Lorde together with the Black German women she taught in a class at the Free University in the spring of 1984. In the introduction to the volume Showing Our Colors, Lorde describes Afro-Germans as one group of many “hyphenated people of the Diaspora whose self-defined identities are no longer shameful secrets in the countries of our origin, but rather declarations of strength and solidarity” (viii). Since then, the term has come to signify individuals who have one white German parent and one ­parent who is a member of the African diaspora (e.g., African American, Afro-Caribbean, African). This definition of the word has, however, since been problematized because it excludes African diasporic peoples living in Germany who do not have a German parent. Furthermore, by now there are Germans who have two Afro-German parents or one AfroGerman parent and another parent with roots in the African diaspora. Therefore, I prefer using the term Black German because Black is not only a political term but also more inclusive (al-Samarai 2004, pp. 611–12).

5  DECOLONIZING GERMAN STUDIES WHILE DISSECTING RACE … 

85

effects of Western imperialism. If a postcolonial viewpoint assumed we had achieved an existence after colonialism, decoloniality acknowledges that even in the absence of colonial governments, many people across the globe continue to suffer from colonial relationships in and with the West. As Karishma Desai and Brenda Nyandiko Sanya write, in contrast to colonialism coloniality is an epistemological frame that binds these historical projects [colonialism and imperialism] to contemporary times in an integral way. Coloniality recognizes how colonial power relations left lasting marks in the areas of authority, sexuality, knowledge, economy, and in our naturalised understanding of what it means to be human. Decoloniality, then, requires delinking from coloniality and modernity […]. (2007, pp. 712–13)

So how can a field like German Studies, whose identity is so e­ ntangled in Eurocentric terms like Enlightenment, Bildung, and modernity, contribute to this worldwide process of delinking from coloniality? Audrone Willeke proposed one of the ways German Studies can contribute to a liberal education is that in a German Studies class, students can “learn how the dominant culture has represented outsiders, but also how writers from minority groups have reflected on their own experiences” (2001, p. 27). I employ a similar approach in my seminar, “Germany and the Black Diaspora,” where students learn that a lot of commonsense presumptions held about Black people (held both by the students themselves and the authors of the texts) are not objective truths but subjective impressions. By reading texts by white German, Black German, African American, and African authors, I am able to include a variety of texts, by authors well-known in the American context, like W.E.B. DuBois (1868–1963), authors well-known in the German context like Hans-Jürgen Massaquoi (1926–2013), and lesser-known authors such as William Gardner Smith (1927–1974). By assigning these diverse authors and bringing them into conversation with each other, I also encourage students to not only challenge cross-racial understandings, but also consider intersectionality, asking students to consider how Mary Church Terrell’s (1863–1954) experience of Germany in the nineteenth century, as a woman, differed from DuBois’s. Or, asking them to consider how DuBois’s experience as an African American exchange student in

86  P. LAYNE

the 1890s in Imperial Germany differed from Auma Obama’s (b. 1960) experience as a Kenyan exchange student in West Germany in the 1980s. The kinds of texts I assign range from poetry to historical texts, and include a novel, a play, a musical, and several films and autobiographies. A further pitfall Henderson foregrounds is that in German Studies “We have come to view our canon as ‘tradition-itself and knowledge-itself’ while remaining ‘ignorant of other epistemological stances – other discourses’” (1992b, p. 109). By incorporating autobiographies in my teaching, I can both acknowledge other epistemologies and acknowledge that there is nothing “objective” about German Studies; rather individuals present an understanding of their world based on their own experience. One might argue that students can encounter this kind of diversity in an American Studies classroom. However, Willeke argues that teaching about diversity in a German class can be especially helpful because: An advantage of a course on a German context is that American students view these emotionally charged issues from a historical and cultural distance. They are less likely to dismiss a course as indoctrination if the course does not directly challenge their values. Instead, by observing the German experience with minorities, they can discover for themselves points of similarity and difference to the situation in the United States. (2001, p. 28)

I have witnessed firsthand how introducing topics like racism and discrimination in a German context allowed students to make connections to the United States that made them more willing to be critical and view their culture from the outside. Below I will offer a general outline of my course, discussing a sample of some of the texts I assign. The materials in the course are intended to help students cultivate several decolonial skills: become more skeptical about official histories and start to ask whose stories are being told and to what end; become more attune with looking for the silences in history and texts and contemplating their meanings; gain a greater appreciation for the necessity of intersectional analysis; and gain a more nuanced understanding of identity. Through this course I was able to increase the diversity of my enrollment—yielding courses with 50% African American students—convince some African American nonmajors to continue taking German classes, and convince non-Black German majors to study the Black Diaspora—successes I believe can easily be replicated on a different campus.

5  DECOLONIZING GERMAN STUDIES WHILE DISSECTING RACE … 

87

My first-year seminar is divided into four historical periods: Colonialism, Weimar/Nazi Germany, Postwar, and Postunification. As Willeke proposes, when a course can “trace both continuities and changes in these depictions [of outsider groups in literature and the visual arts]” this allows students to “recognize the historical nature of ethnic identities and stereotypes” (2001, p. 27). In the following sections, I will first offer a chronological/systematic outline of the topics I address in my course. For each historical period, I suggest texts that I have used and discuss how the students respond to them. You can find the syllabus in the appendix (Appendix F), and I encourage readers to consult the syllabus as I describe each unit, so that they can see when I assign each text.

1  Colonialism In this unit, I aim to teach students some basic facts about German colonialism in Africa (i.e., which areas Germany colonized and for what time frame). But beyond that, I also confront them with how the Germans treated local populations, how colonial thought in German society preceded and survived the life of its colonies and to what extent colonialism has been wiped from the memory of contemporary Germans. I start this section by having students read an excerpt from DuBois’s autobiography in which he relates his experience studying in Berlin at the University of Berlin (now Humboldt University) 1892–1894. It might seem counter-intuitive to some to begin the class with DuBois rather than beginning with a discussion about Germany’s colonies directly. However, DuBois is often a name that at least some students will recognize. As Jason O’Mahony states in his report, one of several reasons Students of Color do not choose to study German is they have “no role models who speak German and no direct contact with anything German” (1992, p. 119). Thus, on the one hand, beginning with an African American icon like DuBois can help make the African American students curious about Germany by presenting them with a person they could possibly relate to and getting them to wonder why an African American man like DuBois would want to go to Germany in the late nineteenth century. On the other hand, I want them to recognize the issue of African American hegemony within the Diaspora and to consider what kinds of privileges DuBois, and other African Americans after him, might have vis-à-vis other Black people in Germany. These are both

88  P. LAYNE

points of critique leveled by Black Germans against African Americans that are important to engage.2 I begin the lesson with a short lecture, recounting important biographical facts from the reading that I find important for students to remember. DuBois ventured to Berlin in 1892 with financial support from Harvard’s Slater Fund in order to study economics (DuBois 2007). In Berlin, DuBois encountered German professors who were familiar with and curious about the situation of African Americans in the United States. Thus, in Berlin, with the encouragement of his professor Gustav Schmoller (1838–1917) and the Verein für Sozialpolitik, DuBois was encouraged to write a dissertation on “Large and Small Agricultural Enterprises in the United States,” a topic that related to the racial politics of sharecropping in a post-Reconstruction United States (Zimmerman 2010, p. 104). Students are always shocked to discover that, while in the United States, DuBois would have been subject to racism, discriminatory laws, and possibly violence on a daily basis, in Germany he felt relatively welcome and free. In order to get students to reflect on this issue, I ask them to form small groups and discuss the following open-ended questions about DuBois’s experience: What kinds of friends does he have? How do women in Germany treat him? Why do you think he is treated like a “prince” in the countryside? Are you surprised by how he was treated? What happens when DuBois tries to explain American racism to a German?

DuBois’s autobiography is an important starting point because it introduces students to a topic that is an ongoing thread throughout the course: The understanding that Blackness, and race, are social constructs. To this end, I also present students with Stuart Hall’s statement “‘Black’ is essentially a politically and culturally constructed category” (1996, p. 443). By the end of the semester, I hope that each student understands that who or what is Black is a constantly shifting idea that depends on historical context. I believe discussing DuBois in the first unit gives students a concrete experience that makes Hall’s abstract claim more tangible. Encountering DuBois’s experience in Germany is not 2 Tina

Campt addresses some of these issues in Other Germans.

5  DECOLONIZING GERMAN STUDIES WHILE DISSECTING RACE … 

89

just an important historical lesson about one of the most famous African American intellectuals, but it is also an empowering moment. Students consider if DuBois’s Blackness can signify one thing in the United States and something else in Germany—because he is overdetermined by his nationality, class, education, and gender—then Blackness is not a stable signifier, neither stable through time nor through space. While DuBois’s largely positive account can be inspiring, I try to make it clear to students that German attitudes toward Blackness are never straightforward or fixed. It is important to remind students to consider the genre in which DuBois wrote. Reading his autobiography, we are confronted with DuBois’s self-representation. Who is DuBois’s audience? How might he intend to present himself and why? Might DuBois be downplaying or perhaps even silencing incidents of racism he experienced in Germany for a specific reason? In order to encourage students to question the fidelity of DuBois’s text, I have them discuss these questions in small groups: How would you describe DuBois’s writing style? When and how does he use German? For what audience did he write this book?

I also pair this excerpt from DuBois with another excerpt from an African American who traveled to Europe during the nineteenth century: Mary Church Terrell. The excerpt from Terrell’s A Coloured Woman in a White World (2005) affords students a counterexample to DuBois that helps highlight how gender possibly affected their individual experiences. Terrell’s discussion of race in Germany is much more nuanced than that of DuBois. She acknowledges intentionally avoiding white Americans while abroad for fear that their prejudiced behavior will negatively influence her German relationships. And she also acknowledges the problem of antisemitism, which is something DuBois is silent about in the section of his autobiography on Berlin. The next kind of text I give to students is German representations of Blackness from the colonial period. Some instructors might prefer not to share images and descriptions that merely reproduce racist understandings of Black people. In truth, there are dangers to sharing such images with students. I do worry about triggering my Black students with these images. However, I find it important for students to have an example of how white Germans represented Blackness, so that they

90  P. LAYNE

may better understand my main point about Blackness as a social construction. When students read an excerpt from Frenssen’s (1863–1945) Peter Moor’s Journey to Southwest (1907), normally they are so shocked and disoriented by the way Blackness is portrayed that they immediately recognize that Frenssen had no actual experience with Black people and instead used Blackness for some other purpose. I follow students’ reading of Peter Moor with an excerpt from Uwe Timm’s (b. 1940) Morenga (1978) to provide them with a counterexample to how white Germans engage with this topic after the postcolonial turn (Timm 2003). I conclude the section on colonialism with a discussion of Jackie Sibblies Drury’s play We Are Proud to Present a Presentation About the Herero of Namibia, Formerly Known as Southwest Africa, From the German Südwestafrika, Between the Years 1884–1915 (2012). Drury’s play also takes a postcolonial approach, but with different methods. The play is a metaplay, portraying several actors, white and Black Americans, who are attempting to create a performance about German Southwest Africa based on a series of letters they have which German soldiers wrote home to their families.3 Thus, the play shifts between the actors’ deliberating about the play to performing the play. These various levels of performance highlight the difficulty of staging a narrative about a traumatic historical event. Drury’s play raises questions like, whose voices have been left out of official histories? Can we ever recover those voices? Can we imagine them in an ethically sound way? We are Proud to Present also facilitates a space where the German history of colonial genocide and the American history of slavery can touch tales, encouraging students to consider what is really unique about anti-Black racism and white supremacy in the United States compared to Germany.

2  Weimar and Nazi Germany The objectives of this unit are for students to (1) understand the impact of (post)colonialism on Weimar and Nazi Germany, (2) consider the influence of Black popular culture on Germany at this time, (3) identify German anxieties around race that begin prior to Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power, and (4) understand how Germans’ fears around race intersect with gender and sexuality. We transition from the colonial genocide of 3 The published script of the play is based on a British performance. Therefore, the actors are identified as white and Black British.

5  DECOLONIZING GERMAN STUDIES WHILE DISSECTING RACE … 

91

the Herero to the aftermath of WWI and the occupation of the German Rhineland by French colonial soldiers. This transition is significant because it shows Germans’ racist reactions to two disparate political situations. In the case of the genocide, Germans felt that, as superiors and rulers of the settler colony German Southwest Africa, they had the right to exploit and disenfranchise the Herero and Nama. And when the Herero and Nama resisted, they were labeled savages who needed to be put back in their place. Following WWI, Germans still considered themselves superior to Africans, which is why France’s use of soldiers from the colonies to participate in the occupation of the Rhineland was particularly offensive to Germans. Tina Campt notes that the French willingly engaged in psychological warfare against the Germans, because the Germans felt that they, as part of the white race, should not be policed by Blacks (2004, pp. 32–33). There are several lessons students can learn from this history. First, the construction of Blackness becomes evident yet again. Whether a soldier was from Indonesia, Madagascar, Tunisia, or Algeria, he was labeled Black, because at that moment Blackness did not refer to a particular skin tone, but rather was meant to signify difference, inferiority, and dangerous sexuality. Second, one also sees the emergence of a global, white identity to which the Germans saw themselves, the British, French, and white Americans as belonging. Finally, Germans’ worry about the effects of the occupation on the power balance in the colonies shows how easily this power structure could be undermined, since it solely relied on the alleged cultural superiority of whites. Germany warned other countries that if African soldiers believed they had a right to police Germans and had a right to sleep with white women, they would no longer accept the inferior role assigned to them in the colonies, and might decide to rebel. In this unit on the Rhineland occupation, I structure discussions around how race, gender, and sexuality work together to contribute to German stereotypes about Blacks. A key part of this unit is a series of images I present to students, which were all produced around this time. These images include a coin commemorating the so-called “Black Shame on the Rhine,” and three posters, two of which depict African soldiers as apelike, gigantic, and attempting to rule over whites; the third poster compares Africans with Czechs as an attempt to dehumanize Eastern Europeans. In small groups of three to four, I assign each group one image and ask students to spend five minutes analyzing the image so that a spokesperson from the group can later explain it to the class. I ask them

92  P. LAYNE

to consider how Blacks are depicted: What characteristics are exaggerated? What kinds of cultural markers are associated with Blacks? How are Blacks dehumanized? And what role does sexuality play in these images? Reading Campt’s chapter in combination with analyzing these images helps students understand that in this case, Germans opposed the “Black” soldiers not only because they were allegedly savages, but also because, through their deployment in the Rhineland, they had access to white women and therefore could potentially interfere with Germany’s self-image as a white nation by fathering biracial children with a claim to German citizenship. This lesson is one of several moments during the semester where I like to draw a comparison to the United States. It is a productive opportunity for students to consider how German anxieties about the Rhineland occupation compare with white American anxieties about miscegenation, which is directly related to the prevalence of lynching in post-Reconstruction United States. In order to help students draw this comparison, I return to the topic of colonialism, asking them several questions that are addressed in Campt’s excerpt: Why did Germans eventually ban the marriage between German men and African women in the colonies? Why were biracial children denied German citizenship? If there was less concern about male soldiers fathering biracial children in the colonies, why was there so much concern about German women doing the same? How did the births of biracial children in the Rhineland undermine earlier laws on citizenship passed in the colonies? In order to once again highlight the importance of positionality and have students consider how an African American’s perspective might differ from someone else in the African diaspora, I pair Campt’s text (which is a historical account looking backwards) with Alain Locke’s “Black Watch on the Rhine” (1924), which is a much more subjective account of the occupation, rooted in his observations at the time. Brent Hayes Edwards uses Locke’s text as an example of how Black people from different countries can have completely differing views on the same event. It is not merely the French’s use of Black soldiers that impresses Locke. For Locke would have been familiar with the U.S. army’s use of Black soldiers in noncombative roles such as in the kitchens or on cleaning duty. In contrast, Locke remarks on the French’s willingness to put their Black soldiers out in the front, in clearly visible positions and in positions that command authority and respect that would have been unavailable to Blacks in the Jim Crow South (Locke 1924). Edwards points out that, contrary to Locke’s positive assessment, the French did not really treat

5  DECOLONIZING GERMAN STUDIES WHILE DISSECTING RACE … 

93

Black people as equals, which is what Rene Maran takes Locke to task for in his “Open Letter to Professor Alain Leroy Locke” (Edwards 2003, p. 106). While I do not have students read Maran’s “Open Letter,” or Edwards’ analysis, I mention these points to them when we discuss Locke’s text together with Campt’s (see the syllabus in the Appendix). For a white artist’s perspective from this period, we read Ernst Krenek’s (1900–1991) jazz opera, Jonny spielt auf (Jonny Strikes Up the Band, 1927). Krenek was an Austrian composer, who faced harsh critique from the Nazis for his jazz opera, which celebrated jazz’s triumph over Classical music as the hallmark sound of modernity (Krenek 1928–1929). Despite Krenek’s positive views about jazz and Black culture, the opera’s sole Black character—its namesake Jonny—depicts African Americans in a negative light. Krenek clearly drew on a number of stereotypes to construct Jonny: He is lazy, a thief, and a womanizer. The action of the play centers around Jonny’s attempt to steal a violin from the famous, white Italian performer Daniello. And Jonny does not care if, in the process, hearts are broken, and men are falsely imprisoned, or even killed. At the end of the opera, Krenek describes Jonny as mounting a giant globe and playing the violin on top, a clear metaphor for the Black musician’s conquering Europe after having taken its cultural goods. In order to transition to the Nazi period, I assign students an excerpt from Hans-Jürgen Massaquoi’s memoir Destined to Witness. Since we do not have time to read the entire book, I choose three incidents in particular: (1) Massaquoi’s visit to a Völkerschau4 as a youth, when the other onlookers suddenly point at him and insist he belongs to an exhibition of Africans (2) Massaquoi’s first day at school when he has to deal with children who tease him about his skin color, and finally (3) an incident when a Nazi in a bar grabs hold of him and taunts him about being a symbol of Rassenschande (race defilement) (Massaquoi 1999). Students were puzzled that Massaquoi could be a supporter of Hitler and that it took him so long to discover that, in addition to the Jews, the Nazis would not accept him either. Massaquoi’s conflicted feelings about the Nazis are also important because it introduces students to the idea that a Black German might not necessarily identify as Black or “feel Black,” 4 The term Völkerschau can best be translated as “human zoo” and it refers to a practice in the nineteenth and early twentieth century when Germans, most notably Carl Hagenbeck (1844–1913), placed Africans, Asians, and Indigenous peoples from North America in zoo exhibits to be observed by the public.

94  P. LAYNE

depending on their circumstances. And even if they do “feel Black,” it is not necessarily the same way African Americans would define Blackness, which is at the core of Campt’s work.

3  Postwar Germany In this unit, my goals are for students to (1) understand the role race plays during Germany’s transition from a fascist dictatorship to a democracy, (2) learn about the Black German children born after WWII, fathered by African American soldiers, and (3) compare and contrast these children’s treatment to the earlier generation of Black German children born after WWI. Despite accounts of positive memories by African American soldiers about the immediate postwar period in Germany, which afforded some relative freedoms in comparison to what they would have experienced in the postwar United States, historians such as Maria Höhn, Martin Klimke, and Timothy Schroer have shown that this racial utopia came into conflict with the Jim Crow laws white Americans attempted to import into Germany (Höhn and Klimke 2010; Schroer 2007). Höhn, Klimke, and Schroer report how white American soldiers insisted on segregated restaurants and bars for Black and white soldiers and, as the white German owners wished to cater to the U.S. military’s desires, this resulted in a form of de facto racial discrimination. An important text in this unit is Ika Hügel-Marshall’s autobiography Invisible Woman. While the book and film A Breath of Freedom can offer students some historical context for the role race played during the American occupation of Germany, and William Gardner Smith’s novel Last of the Conquerors gives them a contemporaneous, fictional account of interracial relationships from the perspective of a Black GI, HügelMarshall’s text gives students the perspective of one of the Black German children born during this period. Hügel-Marshall was born to a white German mother in Southern Germany and was fathered by an African American soldier who was absent throughout most of her life until she reconnected with him as an adult. In order to help students make the connections between these texts, during the lesson on Invisible Woman I ask them the following questions: Why didn’t Erika (Ika) know her father growing up? How do you explain her conflicting feelings toward her father? I also spend at least ten minutes revisiting the question of American-German fraternization and race during the postwar period: What types of fraternization between Germans and Americans weren’t

5  DECOLONIZING GERMAN STUDIES WHILE DISSECTING RACE … 

95

allowed after 1945? Why would the Germans have so many regulations in this regard? For the students’ blog posts, which they complete as homework prior to class, I ask them more general questions that allow them to reflect on the reading as a whole and draw connections to past texts (see Appendix). After students are hit with the blunt reality of Hügel-Marshall’s experience, students watch the melodrama Toxi (1952), directed by R.A. Stemmle (1903–1974). I begin my lesson on Toxi with the opening credits by pointing out that Black German actress Elfie Fiegert is not credited for her role in the film. She is not mentioned by name, only listed as “Toxi,” a move that collapses the actress with the role, naturalizes her performance and the character and continues the practice during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s of not giving Black actors credit for their roles because they were seen as either not practicing a craft, or were considered portions of the mere mise-en-scène, which the director Eva Knopf explores in the documentary Majub’s Journey (2013). And yet, in contrast to earlier German films like Ernst Lubitsch’s (1892–1947) The Oyster Princess (1919) or Helmut Weiss’s (1907–1969) Quax in Afrika (1943) where Black people really are treated as the backdrop against which the drama of white protagonists unfolds, in Toxi, the Black German is supposed to be the central character. Toxi is a Black German orphan who is abandoned on the doorstep of the middle class, white German Rose family. The family is split over what to do about Toxi. Grandfather Rose and the youngest daughter Herta think she should remain with the family, the brother-in-law Theodor insists she be taken to a children’s home. After several melodramatic conflicts, Toxi’s warmth eventually changes Theodor’s mind. But just when the Roses resolve to keep her, her estranged African American father shows up out of the blue to take her home. As Angelica Fenner argues, Toxi functions merely as the Black sidekick there to help rehabilitate the family after WWII (Fenner 2011). This is ultimately the reason why it is not possible for her to remain in this German community that sees itself as white. Reading an excerpt from Ika Hügel-Marshall’s Invisible Woman prior to watching Toxi allowed students to adopt a more critical view toward the film and question its melodramatic tendencies. Some were lulled into accepting the film’s feel-good closure. A white female student remarked: “I believe that the underlying purpose of the film was to show Toxi’s acceptance into this white family.” But not all students were so positive. A white male student stated: “To me, it [the ending] was saying ‘See,

96  P. LAYNE

Toxi is just as good as any white child.’ Obviously, in reality, we cannot expect every child of a certain race to be as sweet as Toxi in order to tolerate those children.” The white male student’s response reflects a common critique of respectability politics5; if Black people can only be accepted as human if they are exceptionally agreeable, what happens if and when they are disagreeable?

4  Postunification The goals for this unit are for students to (1) consider the continuing importance of Black popular culture for Germany; (2) learn about the Second Black German movement of the 1980s and subsequent community organizing since; (3) become familiar with Black German cultural production since the 1980s; (4) learn about the relevance of German reunification for racialized minorities and see how Black Germans responded to this historical moment; and finally (5) consider how the presence of African students and refugees further complicates the racial landscape of contemporary Germany. The first text we read in this unit is an excerpt from Auma Obama’s memoir And then Life Happens (2012). Obama is the older, half-sister of President Barack Obama. Thus, even though students will not necessarily have heard of Auma Obama, they are usually intrigued to learn a little more about their former President’s family. Obama’s book chapters lend themselves well to discussing a short excerpt in one class session because her experience in Germany is largely limited to one or two chapters, beginning with her arrival at Frankfurt airport with a scholarship from the DAAD to study. Though a lot of Obama’s accounts are specific to her experience as a Kenyan woman in Germany in the 1980s, there are actually quite a few moments to which students can relate because Obama is very much the naïve exchange student embarking on her first study abroad experience. Interestingly, Obama’s memoir is also a moment when our earlier discussions about privilege resurface. As prompts for their homework responses, I ask students the following questions: How is Obama’s perspective of Germany unique, especially when considering the other accounts we have read? What parts of her experience do you think would be different had she been a Black man? Students were able to draw 5 For a detailed explanation of “respectability politics,” see the work of Evelyn Brooks (Higginbotham 1993).

5  DECOLONIZING GERMAN STUDIES WHILE DISSECTING RACE … 

97

comparisons between DuBois’s and Obama’s experiences in Germany— both had financial support, could speak German and went to Germany for educational reasons. This comparison helped students see Obama, who is originally from Kenya, not as an impoverished African migrant— which is a dominant stereotypical image in the West—but as an educated, relatively privileged woman (compared to other Kenyans). This revelation helped students abandon Afropessimist narratives common in both the United States and Germany that insist on viewing Africa as underdeveloped—an issue that Black German poet May Ayim (1960– 1996) addresses in the poem “Afro-German I,” which students read the week prior (Ayim 2003). Furthermore, despite students’ abilities to see the similarities between DuBois and Obama, because we had consistently been discussing the issue of gender, especially when we read excerpts from Showing Our Colors, they were still attuned to the differences and they commented on how Obama’s experience in Germany was unique to her being a Kenyan woman; for example she has a difficult time deterring an unwanted suitor. Following Obama’s memoir, the majority of the texts I discuss with students are by and about African Americans. This is partly my attempt to bring things full circle: we started with DuBois, an African American man seeking more freedom in Germany, and we end with protagonists from Paul Beatty’s novel Slumberland and Mark Stewart’s (b. 1961) musical Passing Strange (2004), who are also African American men escaping to Berlin, but 100 years later (Beatty 2008; Stewart 2009). Thus, students are able to reflect on the following questions: What has changed about Germany and about how Germans view race today? What has changed about how African American men view themselves? I end the class with a discussion of the poetry of Philipp Khabo Köpsell (b. 1980). Köpsell is a Black German poet: His mother is a white German, his father is South African. Ending with Köpsell’s poetry is productive because it takes us to another end of the spectrum of questions about Black German culture and national identity. In the texts we read by Massaquoi, Hügel-Marshall, and Ayim, there is a lot of expression of grappling with being pushed outside of the national community because one does not externally fit the expectations of Germanness, which is associated with whiteness. With Köpsell’s poetry, students encounter a Black German perspective that states: “Yes, we [Black Germans] can be German – but we don’t have to be … this break is

98  P. LAYNE

unavoidable – and it’s a liberating moment” (2014, p. 5).6 At the beginning of the lesson, I give students Köpsell’s statement on a PowerPoint slide and ask them to reflect on what he is saying and how it relates to his poetry. Students then have 5 minutes to write individual responses, after which I open the discussion up to the entire class, allowing students to volunteer their responses. Köpsell’s statement allows students to consider that the questions of race and national identity we have been exploring all semester do not have one answer. By the end of the semester, I hope students come to realize that a Black German can insist on their Germanness, like Theodor Michael’s memoir title asserts, Deutsch sein und schwarz dazu, or they can take a postnationalist approach, like Köpsell, and orient themselves toward the Diaspora, or even take a combination of both, as Ayim expresses in her explanation of the Sankofa symbol and what it can mean for Black Germans. But there is no single answer, no one size fits all. I simply hope that, by the end of the semester, my students can now recognize and appreciate the multiplicity of Black experience and of (Black) German experience and take some of what they have learned about subjectivity, identity, history, and memory and apply it to their own personal or political context. If we want to make German Studies a more inclusive discipline and a discipline that has something to contribute to larger conversations in the academy, we can start by decolonizing the curriculum and thinking more critically about what we teach, who(m) we teach, and how we teach. Decolonizing the German canon does not mean throwing out all of the dead white men. In addition to “Germany and the Black Diaspora,” I also teach more general courses like “History of German Cinema” or “Introduction to German Literature.” And I frequently include texts from Schiller, Goethe, Kleist, Brecht, and Kafka. But in every course I teach, when I sit down to design my syllabus, I always ask myself, what texts by People of Color can I include? By integrating texts by People of Color into a syllabus with a more general theme like “Literature of Berlin,” students do not view these texts as “extra” or as some kind of required diversity component. Rather, by presenting texts in this manner, I help students see authors of Color as belonging to the canon of German literature, as I see it. This is something that every instructor of German

6 „Ja, wir [Afro-Germans] können deutsch sein – aber wir müssen es nicht […] dieser Bruch [ist] unumgänglich – und es ist ein Befreieungsmoment.“

5  DECOLONIZING GERMAN STUDIES WHILE DISSECTING RACE … 

99

Studies can do and it is a way to acknowledge and appreciate the diversity already present among our students and within German society.

References al-Samarai, Nicole Lauré. 2004. “Niether Foreigners Nor Aliens: The Interwoven Stories of Sinti and Roma and Black Germans.” Women in German Yearbook 20 (1): 163–83. Ayim, May. 2003. Blues in Black and White: A Collection of Essays, Poems and Conversations. Trenton: Africa World Press. Beatty, Paul. 2008. Slumberland. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Campt, Tina. 2004. Other Germans: Black Germans and the Politics of Race, Genderand Memory in the Third Reich. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Desai, Karishma, and Brenda Nyandiko Sanya. 2007. “Towards Decolonial Praxis: Reconfiguring the Human and the Curriculum.” Gender and Education 28 (6): 712–13. DuBois, W.E.B. 2007. The Autobiography of W.E.B. DuBois. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Edwards, Brent Hayes. 2003. The Practice of Diaspora: Literature, Translation and the Rise of Black Internationalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fenner, Angelica. 2011. Race After Reconstruction in German Cinema: R.A. Stemmle’s Toxi. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Hall, Stuart. 1996. “What Is Black in Black Popular Culture?” In Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, edited by David Morley and KuanHsing Chen, 468–478. London, UK: Routledge. Henderson, Ingeborg. 1992a. “A Call to Action.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German 24 (1): 4–9. ———. 1992b. “Preparing for Diversity: From Administrative Planning to TA Training.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 24 (1): 107–15. Higginbotham, Evelyn Brooks. 1993. Righteous Discontent: The Women’s Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880–1920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Höhn, Maria, and Martin Klimke. 2010. A Breath of Freedom: The Civil Rights Struggle, African American GIs, and Germany. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hopkins, Leroy. 1992. “Expanding the Canon: Afro-German Studies.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 25 (2): 121–26. Köpsell, Phillip Khabo. 2014. Afro-Shop. Berlin: Epubli. Krenek, Ernst. 1928–1929. Johnny Strikes Up the Band. Metropolitan Opera House.

100  P. LAYNE Locke, Alain. 1924. “The Black Watch on the Rhine.” Opportunity 2 (January): 6–9. Lorde, Audre. 1992. “Foreword.” In Showing Our Colors: Afro-German Women Speak Out, edited by May Opitz, Katharina Oguntoye, and Dagmar Schultz, vii–xv. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Massaquoi, Hans-Jürgen. 1999. Destined to Witness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany. New York: William Morrow and Company. Obama, Auma. 2012. And Then Life Happens. New York: St. Martin’s Press. O’Mahony, Jason. 1992. “Promoting German Among Students of Color: A Report on the Student Task Force on Diversity at UC Davis.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 24 (1): 116–20. Schroer, Timothy. 2007. Recasting Race After WWII: Germans and AfricanAmericans in American-Occupied Germany. Colorado: University of Colorado Press. Sephocle, Marilyn. 1992. “Report on the AATG Diversity Workshop April 3–5, 1992.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 24 (1): 184–87. Smith, William Gardner. 1948. The Last of the Conquerors. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Company. Stewart, Mark. 2009. Passing Strange: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical. New York: Applause Theatre & Cinema Books. Terrell, Mary Church. 2005. A Colored Woman in a White World. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Timm, Uwe. 2003. Morenga. Translated by Breon Mitchell. New York: New Directions. Toxi. 1952. Dir. R.A. Stemmle. Perf. Elfie Fiegert and Paul Bildt. Fono Film. Willeke, Audrone. 2001. “Discussing Diversity: What a Course on German Literature Can Contribute to a Liberal Education.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German 34 (1): 27–31. Zimmerman, Andrew. 2010. Alabama in Africa: Booker T. Washington, the German Empire and the Globalization of the New South. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

CHAPTER 6

Documents of Colonialism and Racial Theorizing in the German Classroom Evan Torner

Higher education in the twenty-first century must reconcile itself with the fact that, despite teachers’ efforts to the contrary, students come to college with a worldview shaped by white supremacy and capitalist triumphalism. Elementary and secondary schools in the western world do this by default (Freire 1970). The situation demands, as Ingeborg Henderson already recognized in 1991, “a differentiated perception of reality and matter-of-fact appraisal” [“eine differenzierte Wahrnehmung der Wirklichkeit und sachliche Einschätzung”] (Henderson 1991, p. 29) regarding the United States’ and Germany’s everyday multiculturalism and its extant structures of discrimination against non-white people. With the rise of global white ressentiment and an ecological future that all but promises a displaced refugee existence for much of the world’s majority non-white population, German teachers imparting language and culture lessons must also take ownership in combating racial assumptions around Germanness. Afro-Germans, Turkish Germans, Syrian Germans, Jewish Germans, and Chilean Germans among others have made

E. Torner (*)  Department of German Studies, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_6

101

102  E. TORNER

instrumental and fascinating contributions to the transnational entity known as “German culture,” let alone have rights to full, autonomous German national citizenship and state support. North American students increasingly attracted by the continued strength of the German national economy who seek a job abroad (Tatlock 2010, p. 12) must attend to Germany’s, Austria’s, and Switzerland’s fraught history of white supremacist theory and praxis or risk becoming convinced of a white supremacist vision of Europe that excludes much of its own population. What is this “white supremacist theory and praxis” with respect to Germany? Racist structures define Germany as much as any other European country. One of the early European anti-racist works Dissertatio inauguralis de jure Maurorum in Europa (1729), for example, was published in Halle by African philosopher Anton Wilhelm Amo (1703– 1759), who wound up in German-speaking lands due to the workings of the global slave trade and later left due to racial antagonism from white Germans. His scholarship was summarily ignored by successor philosophers such as Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831), whose work not only exhibited blatant white supremacy but also legitimated racialist thinking among the highest intellectual circles in Europe (Eigen and Larrimore 2006). The German lands were also part of the profit engines and fantasy projections of transatlantic slavery (Raphael-Hernandez and Wiegmink 2017) and these fantasies fueled further military adventurism and settler colonialism after Germany became a nation-state (Friedrichsmeyer et al. 1999). Germany possessed colonies between 1885 and 1918 and these—with their reigning maxim of “teaching them to work” [“Erziehung zur Arbeit”]—became test laboratories for the later brutal labor practices found in the concentration camps of the Third Reich (Grosse 2005). Once the National Socialist regime had been defeated in 1945 by American and Soviet armies with their own respective racial tensions, racism, and antisemitism refigured themselves in the economically thriving Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) through a culture of denial and unmarked white privilege (Chin et al. 2009), and were papered over by misplaced claims of solidarity and anti-imperialism in the socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR; Slobodian 2016). After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Fatima El-Tayeb writes in her history of race, nation, and German identity that the “mechanisms of exclusion are still intact, and will likely continue to be so, until their existence is first admitted and then thoroughly analyzed” (El-Tayeb 2005, p. 53).

6  DOCUMENTS OF COLONIALISM AND RACIAL THEORIZING … 

103

In order to admit and analyze these mechanisms, we must confront and recognize structural racism and racializing discourse within the primary texts of German culture. University students of all levels must explicitly examine historical continuities and discontinuities in this discourse. Critical race theory demands an unflinching gaze at not only how “race” works its way into language and subtext, but also how time and place shape that language and subtext (Wright 2015). Yet in a typical North American German language classroom, students are often in the beginning levels of language learning, interpret texts literally, and do not have sufficient historical knowledge to relativize and contextualize what they have read. This chapter concerns my own path, methods, successes, and failures in teaching German culture through the lens of critical race theory and pedagogy. I articulate my own formation as a scholar of race as well as the development of my 2013 seminar at Grinnell College, “Race Theory and the Modern German State,” in terms of course objectives, course material, and pedagogical methods. Both historical and modern German states provide ideal texts for such critical discourse analysis: legal, literary, medical, philosophical, and military documents are all rife with racialized jargon and insinuations. Yet many of the most influential texts—including the screed of J.F. Blumenbach (1752–1840) or Alfred Rosenberg (1893–1946)—are not only horrifying in their content and context but also have the potential to lure uncritical white students under their spell. Despite all pedagogical framing devices and discourse-analytic tools, I have encountered multiple students willing to reproduce the language of the primary sources without much critical framework. This chapter grapples with my own engagement with critical race theory, the unintentional advocacy of racist content, and pedagogical methods required to create this critical framework with which to receive primary texts. My experiences are both illustrative of larger phenomena and specific enough to guide future scholars interested in teaching such material.

1  The Dilemmas of Teaching Race Which perspective of a painful, fatal history does one teach: that of the perpetrator or the victim? The victim’s story must be heard with empathy, but the perpetrator perspective helps a scholar answer why and how a particular set of crimes came to pass. In the case of the Holocaust, for example, Paul A. Roth (2004) writes that there were three types of

104  E. TORNER

perpetrator behavior: structural, intentional, and situational. Structural perpetrators had absolutely no individual agency over the crimes committed, whereas intentional perpetrators actively chose to victimize other humans. Situational perpetrators acted the way they did based on their general level of conformity and the dynamics of the specific incident as it unfolded. In the case of global racism, or even specifically within the German context, racism is made up of mostly structural perpetrators, to our frustration. Although we can read the intentionality in the wicked calculus of the Wannsee Conference proceedings, the police reports of “Rowdys” that intentionally beat up non-white contract workers in the GDR (Waibel 2008), or the intentionally provocative racist slogans of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), racism is largely a casual, everyday structure that is supported by nearly everyone in a given liberal society by design. To quote David Theo Goldberg (1993): Liberalism plays a foundational part in this process of normalizing and naturalizing racial dynamics and racist exclusions. As modernity’s definitive doctrine of self and society, of morality and politics, liberalism serves to legitimate ideologically and rationalize politico-economically prevailing sets of racialized conditions and racist exclusions. (p. 1)

Secondary literature on the history of racial thinking proves an absolute necessity in reading texts from any era, especially if the object of analysis is the differentiation between distinct regimes of race and power. However, there is also a fundamental pleasure and pedagogical impact in the “gotcha” moment when one stumbles across absolutely blatant racial animus in a text, as if to assure ourselves that there is some clear division between intentional and structural racists. For example, there is the infamous Kant passage from Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime (1764) in which he declares that a “man black from head to toe [was] clear proof that what he said was stupid” (Kant 1991, p. 111). The blunt force of this racist aside folds quite nicely into larger assertions about the racism of his entire metaphysical belief system, one of the most influential in European philosophy. Kant made an intentionally racist remark and later legitimated pseudoscientific race theories that would spread across Europe’s intelligentsia, influencing Hegel, J.G. Herder (1744–1803), J.G. Fichte (1762–1814), and others. Yet our students of German will likely understand the former, while only hazily grasping the latter unless trained otherwise.

6  DOCUMENTS OF COLONIALISM AND RACIAL THEORIZING … 

105

Another dilemma in educating German students in the complexities of structural racism involves the treatment of primary texts in class. Critical discourse analysis remains our tool of translating such texts into situated knowledge of culture and society. Popularized by Michel Foucault (1969) and Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1966), discourse analysis presumes found historical utterances to be imbricated with their contemporaneous forms of knowledge production and social inequalities. Semiotics cannot be abstracted from said historical reality, but rather are deeply enriched by overlapping social meanings at the discursive level (Parr and Link 1990). The point is to estrange ourselves not only from history but also from our own present. Discourse analysis requires a student to presume bias in any document they read, regardless of origin, and to understand the subject’s argument on its own terms, the terms of the knowledge cultures with which the historical subject is engaged, and the power relations that govern what does and does not count as knowledge.1 One reads not for the “gotcha” moment, but for the solipsism of ever-shifting historical power relations that predominates in the text. Both our search for easy answers to questions of race as well as the overarching ugliness of racially exclusionary texts pose difficulties in research as well as in the classroom. Yet we are aided by a critical race pedagogy that maintains the centrality of race in the formations of power and knowledge, the role of our personal, situated experience in those formations, and the development of active counterstrategies against dominant white narratives. In this spirit, I turn now to my own history in teaching and learning about race in the German context as an object lesson.

2   A Race Lesson My own journey into critical race pedagogy provides some insight into how a white, Jewish, cis-male student of German can go from dangerous cluelessness to a certain level of expertise on the topic. Jennings and Lynn (2005) describe the primary pillars of critical race pedagogy as the in-class negotiation of power relations, open self-critique, and counter-hegemonic action. At the beginning of my graduate education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2005, I still clung

1 Or

in Kant’s case above: What is a primary argument and what is a mere aside?

106  E. TORNER

to several unexamined white supremacist notions of meritocracy in the academy. I continued to exclude Afro-Germans and Turkish Germans from some of my syllabi, despite knowing better, and could not name a major European scholar of race. In April 2006, self-critique of my white privilege began in earnest with the historic “Remapping Black Germany” conference held at our university and organized by Sara Lennox, Tobias Nagl, and Peggy Piesche. Invited speakers included Fred Moten, who highlighted Immanuel Kant’s racism as well as the liberatory potentiality within his thought; Robert Bernasconi, who convincingly traced the contours of racial thinking from Kant to the Nazis; Sara Pugach, who demonstrated the fluidity of definitions of race between the German colonies and the Kaiserreich; Tina Campt, who examined the photographic legacy of brown babies under the Nazis; Damani Partridge, who pointed out the fantasy space that “blackness” occupies in Germany; Michelle Wright, who discussed Afro-Germans’ embrace of modernism; Fatima El-Tayeb, who mounted her now-famous critique of Europe from a queer Black European perspective; and so on. I say without irony that the very leaders of the discipline of critical race philosophy as well as Afro-German studies were all gathered for a historic four-day plenum, never quite to be repeated. Suddenly, a history that linked philosophical overreach and global legacies of colonialism, imperialism, and Nazi genocide took center stage for me. I began to devour publications related to the topic, especially Bernasconi’s Race (2001) and the Afro-German collective masterwork by Eggers et al. Mythen, Masken, und Subjekte (2006). Renegotiation of power relations in German Studies and ­counter-hegemonic action in both my scholarship and teaching seemed ­absolutely necessary at the time. In Fall 2007, Lennox taught a graduate seminar with the short title “Race Theory” that drew heavily on material from the conference. The arc of the course framed race as a relatively modern topos formed from precolonial religious prejudice (Fredrickson 2002) and colonial-era forms of domination and subjectivity (Goldberg 1993) that persist in (and are exacerbated by) the neoliberal era. Significant numbers of students came from anthropology, and some of the interdisciplinary dialogues remain with me to this day. They mentioned, for example, the First Universal Races Congress in 1911 London, where W.E.B. Du Bois (1868–1963) and Mojola Agbebi (1860–1917) among others were in attendance. Already at this event, prominent scholars debunked most of the cherished tenets of racial hierarchy theories, but it was not until the 1970s

6  DOCUMENTS OF COLONIALISM AND RACIAL THEORIZING … 

107

that the majority of American anthropologists agreed that race was an indefensibly nonviable means of categorizing human beings. The course also spent a significant portion mired in the primary texts of racial theory—J.F. Blumenbach’s influential De generis humanis varietate nativa (1781), Hegel’s Anthropologie (1830), Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s “Elemente des Antisemitismus” (1944)—along with appropriate secondary literature. The end of the course followed David Theo Goldberg’s (1993) argument about the newly globalized reach of racism: Communication networks and the needs of racialized capitalism help spread racist ideology and render it useful to the powerful to control their populations. Not only was I now convinced I needed to be an anti-racist activist in my scholarship and teaching but also that students had to read the primary sources to be exposed to the full toxicity of this global racist system in all its discursive forms across history. This is where I transitioned from being a student to a teacher of the subject. In Fall 2013, I became Andrew W. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow in German Studies at Grinnell College and was granted the opportunity to teach an advanced seminar on whatever topic I could choose. The resultant seminar, “Race Theory and the Modern German State,” incorporated material from Lennox’s 2007 seminar, but limited the theory in favor of primary texts that the students could encounter and interpret based on their original sets of skills and knowledge. Since the seminar had to be almost entirely in German, I began to see the complexity of the subject material already when I tried to translate the course title: “Rassentheorie” has the sound of dangerous Nazi pseudoscience, not the object of serious college inquiry. To make absolutely clear what the course would entail, I incorporated the following course description: To the benefit of some and detriment of many, whiteness serves as a major structuring factor in modern Central European politics and culture. Yet the category of “race” is, by historical measure, a relatively recent social construct in human society, and its discursive power can be somewhat attenuated by an understanding of how the concept has evolved over the centuries. This interdisciplinary course provides a genealogy of racial thinking in Central European thought from the 12th to the 21st Century, using methods from social and literary theory to focus and refine our analysis.

The selection of texts for analysis, rather than the course assignments, proved to be the innovative aspect of this course. The texts needed to

108  E. TORNER

be primarily in German, short, lucid, and related to one another. Key framing theorists were Ann Laura Stoler (2002), Etienne Balibar (2008), Susan Arndt (2006), George Fredrickson (2002), and May Ayim (Opitz 1986). Because genealogy figured so prominently in the course description, I chose to begin with the Middle Ages and the mixed-heritage character of Feirefiz in Parzival (1210) by Wolfram von Eschenbach (1170–1220). Students dissected the ambivalence of medieval subjects toward otherness in a time predating the modern concept of “race.” We then took a detour into the work of a cherished figure in German Studies, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781), whose description of the fictional African people “Hottentotten” in chapter XXV of the treatise Laokoon (1766) combines the aesthetics of skin color with a predisposed disgust (Chaouli 2006). Students learned how aesthetic values have precoded racial connotations, and how these norms become established in famous essays read by generations of artists and intellectuals. We covered Kant’s dialogue with Georg Forster (1754–1794), a major early public debate about race in which Kant’s speculations about the seeds of racial diversity collide with Forster’s lived experiences and careful anthropological documentation during his time on Captain James Cook’s (1728–1779) Second Voyage (Gray 2012). From there, we moved through Hegel, Blumenbach, and Herder and the solidification of race in German philosophy, the intricate story of racial violence that is Heinrich von Kleist’s (1777–1811) Die Verlobung in St. Domingo (1811), and Annette von Droste-Hülshoff’s (1797–1848) mystery regarding an anti-Semitic murder in Die Judenbuche (1842). In each instance, we tried to formulate the racial worldview of the author and the text’s ambiguous role within broader structures of racial thinking and discrimination in the European and African contexts. We read excerpts of Richard Wagner’s (1813–1883) inflammatory manuscript “Das Judenthum in der Musik” (1869) as well as Frieda von Bülow’s (1857– 1909) colonialist writings on Africa, all accompanied with modern contextualization (Conrad 2012; Opitz 1986). We moved onto looking at the visual and written materials from the Rhineland occupation following World War I and German racial animus against French colonial troops, as well as the early twentieth-century obsession with “people shows” [“Völkerschauen”] and anthropological and formal medical classification of races, followed by primary documents linking such thinking with later Nazi racial policy—e.g., the Nuremberg Laws (1935)—as influenced by American racial segregation and imperialist designs in Eastern

6  DOCUMENTS OF COLONIALISM AND RACIAL THEORIZING … 

109

Europe (Hofer 1957; Grosse 2005; Schmitt 1932). Portions of AfroGerman Hans Massaquoi’s (1926–2013) 1999 biography, which spans this period, complicated our portrait of Nazi race relations, as well as the work of Tina Campt (2004) on the Afro-German children sterilized in the Third Reich. Postwar racism constitutes a whole unit in of itself, and for that I used the melodrama Toxi (1952) as well as Angelica Fenner’s (2010) work on the film, the GDR DEFA films of solidarity Lied der Ströme (1954) and Osceola (1971), and Zafer Şenocak’s (2011) commentary on the racialization of the first Turkish guest workers to arrive in West Germany. When discussing the titular modern German state, we relied on Damani Partridge’s qualitative interviews about present-day German marginalization Hypersexuality and Headscarves (2012), Pepe Danquart’s short film “Schwarzfahrer” (1993), Brothers Keepers’ music video “Adriano” (2001), writings by Şenocak, Seyran Ateş, and Emine Sevgi Özdamar, resurgent right-wing racist writings of Thilo Sarrazin (2010), and Noah Sow’s anti-racist activism in Deutschland - Schwarz Weiß (2009). Under the presidency of Barack Obama and prior to the rise of extremist groups such as Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident (Pegida) and the AfD in Germany, a group of white Grinnell College students thus drew the long arc of German whiteness across various media and documents. The archive on which we drew proved particularly damning, but one repeated theme of the course was how “neutrally” some of the texts could be read by those from the dominant culture. Sarrazin’s xenophobic and eugenicist arguments of the last decade, for example, are cloaked in the language of economics and demographic change (Sarrazin 2010, pp. 51–77). Lied der Ströme presents itself as an informational documentary when it exploits the footage from hundreds of cinematographers from the Global South to argue for the superiority of the white GDR/Soviet epistemology. Lessing’s Laokoon is presumably just a meditation on art. Thus, my chief achievement in this course was watching the students begin to question the “neutrality” of their information environment and to seek new information in secondary literature when they found something in the primary texts that did not make sense. Blumenbach and Bülow were both considered extremely hard to read, but these advanced-level students monitored their own progress through the texts and devised strategies— including reading difficult passages aloud in a group—to get through them and make sense of their historically situated arguments.

110  E. TORNER

3  The Problem of Primary Sources One challenge I have faced in more recent years has to do with nuanced analyses of racism on the global left. Quinn Slobodian (2016) and Priscilla Layne (2018) among others have argued that German leftists have appropriated the imagery of non-white people for their own causes. Bourgeois progressives and socialist agitators alike have participated in longue durée racist traditions, despite open advocacy of anti-racist positions. My own work (Torner 2013, 2016) insists upon the role of genre fiction and youth culture in securing counterproductive racial stereotypes within the imaginaries of white socialist populations otherwise committed to the fight against racist imperialism around the world. One can, indeed, be both anti-racist and racist. Capturing such nonbinary detail in my curricula requires a careful dance between intentions and outcomes; asserting that, on the one hand, white Marxists were better than most capitalists on race and, on the other hand, had quite some distance to go in fighting their own racist presumptions. In Fall 2014, I taught a course on cultural theory after Marx, and chose to problematize Marxists’ relations to German colonialism in the late nineteenth century. According to Sebastian Conrad (2012), educated Germans in the 1880s–1910s had a “generally positive view of the colonial project” (p. 32) tested by numerous wars and scandals abroad. Indeed, the Social Democrats (SPD) eventually came around to supporting “a different type of colonialism, not [alternatives] to colonialism”2 (p. 35). One of the more disturbing documents of this era was the 1904 study Politische Anthropologie: Eine Untersuchung über den Einfluss der Deszendenztheorie auf die Lehre von der politischen Entwicklung der Völker by left-wing physician Ludwig Woltmann (1871–1907). Woltmann dedicated his life’s work to connecting Social Darwinist theories of race with the historical progress narrative advocated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. He argues with ugly candor on behalf of the “mental superiority of the white race” [“geistige Überlegenheit der weißen Rasse”] (Woltmann 1903, p. 226) that would then theoretically predispose white people as being the first in line to transcend the bourgeois-proletariat dialectic and reach Marx’s ideal of a classless utopia. I taught sections of Woltmann’s thoroughly hateful, discredited book as primary texts for several reasons. First and foremost, I wanted 2 On

the SPD’s racist ambivalence, see also El-Tayeb (2005), pp. 40–41.

6  DOCUMENTS OF COLONIALISM AND RACIAL THEORIZING … 

111

to trouble the notion that white German racism and eugenics theory emerged only under the auspice of the conservatives and far right. On the contrary, many progressives at the turn of the century fully aligned themselves with the white supremacist notion that they were biologically somehow “further ahead” in development than their non-white comrades, a shameful chapter in the history of global anti-capitalism. Diverse populations around the world were artificially conceived of as nations yearning to be free, and even concepts such as “progress” or “history” took their epistemic contours from white colonial thinking (Chatterjee 1986). Second, I taught the text parallel with other critics of the inability for the European left to properly conceive of and attend to the needs of non-white residents at home and residents of the Global South, namely: Leon Trotsky (1879–1940), Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), Rámon Grosfoguel, Cedric Robinson, and Vivek Chibber. I had considered these thinkers a proper prophylactic against the mental gymnastics of Woltmann, who would serve as a crass paradigmatic example of a whole (discredited) subfield of Marxist ideology. Finally, the text reads similarly enough to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925) so as to draw disturbing parallels between the dictators right-wing populism and sympathizers on the left. Rudimentary discourse analysis reveals Social Darwinism as cloaked in seductive pseudoscience, drafted by white Europeans to secure their dominance. Despite my intentions as an instructor and our class’ overall sensitivity to the subject material, however, one white male student—given here the alias of Nicholas—dove headfirst into Woltmann’s philosophy without a critical race theory approach to be found. Nicholas’ method revolved around pointing out ambiguities between multiple texts, comparing them with each other, and asking questions about how they might be similar, regardless of context. False equivalency was the frequent outcome of his analyses, to say the least. In the case of Nicholas’ analysis of Woltmann with respect to Marx and Engels, for example, this resulted in uncritical statements such as “History is a part of nature” and “Dialectical materialism ‘approaches’ theories of natural development.” Woltmann is paraphrased verbatim for both statements, although the paper itself does not always make it clear that this is a paraphrase. Nicholas gradually became obsessed with Woltmann’s evolution of thought—an otherwise worthy scholarly question within a wider race theory context—through the narrow frame of his biography and engagement with Marx, Engels, and Darwin. By the time I had finished

112  E. TORNER

reading a draft of Nicholas’ work, I was convinced that the text I had just read had relativized Marx’s texts to those of Hitler, saying both that their viewpoints were very similar and that perhaps both platforms were equally reasonable. I considered my lessons with this student a failure, and tried desperately to provide feedback that would turn the tide of his thinking. My commentary and grading of the assignment aside, I myself learned an important lesson from Nicholas’ research: Primary sources with racist content, despite their logical fallacies and overall ridiculousness, still contain the power to lull white male readers into a preposterous sense of superiority, and that false equivalency—bothsidesism, to use a current phrase—is one of the most pernicious modern enemies of ­distanced academic inquiry.

4  Pedagogical Techniques Over the years of teaching primary texts and secondary literature on German race theory, I have deployed a number of teaching techniques that situate both within a classroom environment. White structural privilege creates ignorance, and my pedagogy intervenes to both recognize this ignorance as well as encourage those students from marginalized identities to engage with the material as experts. One exercise I use is ahistorical quote identification. Students are given a list of quotes about race from different speakers, both anti-racist and racist alike, and are given the task to match them to a set list of speakers. In one case, I used Arndt, Sarrazin, Rosenberg, Hegel, Blumenbach, Şenocak, and Maisha Eggers to illustrate convergence and divergence in the framing of “race” over time. Discourse analysis requires historical specificity, and the exercise helps demonstrate why such specificity is important: both the postcolonialists (Arndt 2006; Eggers et al. 2006) and the Nazis (Rosenberg 1930) use the word “Rasse” despite absolute differences in moral, scholarly, and ideological underpinnings, whereas Sarrazin uses the euphemism “Immigranten” and Hegel the expressions “foreigners” [“Fremden”] or “others” [“Anderen.”] Each theorist has a strategic purpose in their discourse: Arndt and Eggers to re-problematize a “race-blind” society, Rosenberg to invoke “Rasse” as an immutable category so as to prove some farcical racial superiority, Sarrazin to kindle thoughts of white Germans being “natives” as opposed to outside travelers who do not belong on German soil, Hegel to draw philosophical distinctions about subjectivity itself.

6  DOCUMENTS OF COLONIALISM AND RACIAL THEORIZING … 

113

Assuming students have a grasp of critical discourse analysis, how does one ensure such tools are properly deployed on texts that are otherwise spreading fairly harmful ideology about the hierarchy of races and so forth? One important foundation stone in my teaching of these subjects is to always include a variety of texts, not only between primary and secondary literature but also between ugly “overt” racist texts—e.g., the westerns of Karl May, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens, 1936)—as well as symbolically intricate racist texts, such as the FRG film Toxi or Heinrich von Kleist’s Die Verlobung von St. Domingo, and anti-racist texts, such as the writings of May Ayim. In each case, one can solicit the students to spell out the precise underlying assertion of any given artifact before them. Every text has an argument, including those that prove such arguments through pseudoscience and prejudice, and it is important for students to recognize the contours of the argument before they then debunk it for logical fallacies and basic moral turpitude. It is, in fact, to the advantage of the liberal arts student to get particularly good at this skill in filtering an increasingly fragmented media environment. When students are looking at a primary text that comes across as “neutral” or “scientific,” I will have the students take a passage from the material and underline the “value-charged” words—those that have an obvious or implied racial meaning—and articulate precisely their implication. For example, Hegel writes in his Anthropologie that Mongolians “emerge from this childish innocence; it is revealed that, within them, there is a characteristic restless mobility that comes to no definite results” [“erheben sich aus dieser kindischen Unbefangenheit; in ihnen offenbart sich als das Charakteristische eine unruhige, zu keinem festen Resultate kommende Beweglichkeit”] (Hegel 1830, §392). Most students would underline “childish” [“kindisch”] as a slur; the student could write “Hegel believed that the Mongols were somehow more immature or less-developed than the white Germans.” [“Hegel glaubte, dass die Mongolen irgendwie unreifer oder unterentwickelter als weiße Deutschen seien.”] But they could also point out the overall historically contingent essentialism of his praise of the Mongols’ restlessness: “Hegel positively valued the nomadic existence of the Mongols, although that which he described as the Mongolian ‘race’ could have applied to many tribes and ethnicities.” [“Hegel wertete die nomadische Existenz der Mongolen als positiv, obwohl was er als die mongolische ‘Rasse’ beschreibt, könnte für viele Stämme und Ethnizitäten gelten.”]

114  E. TORNER

Emphasizing the historicity of knowledge and the driving assumptions of a text go a long way in relativizing the long reach of white-supremacist intellectual history. Finally, when it comes to film analysis, I introduce them to the field of film studies using Anton Kaes’ and Eric Rentschler’s “How to Read a Narrative Film” handout from decades of German Film Institutes. The handout breaks down film analysis into a series of questions that students can ask of the film, and it becomes surprisingly useful when talking about race and racial marginalization in a film work. For example, “What are the inherent oppositions at work in the film on the thematic level?” (Kaes and Rentschler, p. 2) works very well for the analysis of Toxi, which is both trying to solidify a liberal white bourgeois family identity and, in doing so, expresses absolute anxiety about such an identity in the face of so-called “Besatzungskinder,” or the Black children of African-American soldiers and white German women. The film does this by initially presenting the Black child Toxi (Elfie Fiegert) in a horrifying close-up, but then gradually softens its approach toward her as she cries and even comforts the protagonists. Students pointed out both the dehumanization of Toxi as well as her resubstantiation as a kind of savior figure for the white German family before being whisked away by her American father in the end. The question “Does the film deal with a conflict still unresolved in our time and culture?” (2) lets us watch the uneasy alliance in Osceola between Osceola’s (Gojko Mitic) Seminoles and Black Panther’s (Boubacar Touré) Seminoles as a kind of figurative alliance in the German imaginary between the Native Americans and the African Americans, even though historical Seminoles did not make such racial distinctions. Just as the students learn about careful, critical reading of a text with respect to the discourses of racism, so too do they learn how race manifests and is normalized or problematized by specific screen practices. “Schwarzfahrer” and “Adriano” allow the students to see how such film language is deployed in the service of anti-racism.

5  Conclusion Race remains elusive precisely because it is such a useful instrument in maintaining the power of an extreme minority. What Anthony Appiah calls “racialism,” or the value-neutral human belief that humanity is divided into races, plays right into the “coloniality of power” theorized by Anibal Quijano (2000): the mutual reinforcement of systems of racial

6  DOCUMENTS OF COLONIALISM AND RACIAL THEORIZING … 

115

classification and white European hierarchies of labor and capital (Appiah 1993). The powerful classify a people to control their labor, and destroy them if they do not submit. As I have argued above, the transnational German contribution to this sordid system has been downplayed in decades of postwar German curricula, and it is the obligation of those of us plying Germanistik as “German Studies” to directly address it in our courses on language and culture. Choosing not to talk about racism and marginalization in the German context is to normalize and even side with a dominant white supremacist vision of transatlantic European, African, and American history. Nevertheless, the introduction of openly racist content brings with it the obligation to historicize and contextualize it, lest we unintentionally spread its seductive ideology to a new generation of mostly white students, many of whom are still learning German grammar and vocabulary intricacies. American students have a particularly difficult time grappling with such structures because they are raised within a media climate that deliberately obfuscates the means necessary to have a nuanced discussion about race, and the Generation X ironic distance that we thought would insulate the “knowing” student from the more toxic course content cannot be relied upon (Owens 2018). In this respect, the task for the professor is no different from any other lesson: to meet the students where they are, and then challenge them to push themselves beyond their boundaries of comfort. Talk of race in a climate of unstated white dominance necessarily pushes those boundaries. We as German instructors, in the memory of Germany’s long engagement with race and racism, must continue that talk.

References Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 1993. In My Father’s House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Arndt, Susan. 2006. “The Racial Turn. Kolonialismus, Weiße Mythen und Critical Whiteness Studies.” In Koloniale und postkoloniale Konstruktionen von Afrika und Menschen afrikanischer Herkunft in der deutschen Alltagskultur, edited by Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst, Sunna Gieseke, and Reinhard KleinArendt, 11–26. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Balibar, Étienne. 2008. “Racism Revisited.” PMLA 123 (5): 1630–39. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Penguin Random House LLC. Bernasconi, Robert. 2001. Race. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

116  E. TORNER Campt, Tina. 2004. Other Germans: Black Germans and the Politics of Race, Gender, and Memory in the Third Reich. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Chaouli, Michel. 2006. “Laocoön and the Hottentots.” In The German Invention of Race, edited by Sara Eigen and Mark Larrimore, 29–41. Albany: SUNY Press. Chatterjee, Partha. 1986 Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World. Tokyo: Zed Books. Chin, Rita, Heide Fehrenbach, Geoff Eley, and Atina Grossmann. 2009. After the Racial State: Difference and Democracy in Postwar Germany. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Conrad, Sebastian. 2012. German Colonialism: A Short History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Eggers, Maisha M., Grada Kilomba, Peggy Piesche, and Susan Arndt, eds. 2006. Mythen, Masken und Subjekte: Kritische Weißseinsforschung in Deutschland. Münster: Unrast Verlag. Eigen, Sara, and Mark Larrimore, eds. 2006. The German Invention of Race. Albany: SUNY Press. El-Tayeb, Fatima. 2005. “Dangerous Liaisons: Race, Nation and German Identity.” In Not so Plain as Black and White: Afro-German Culture and History 1890–2000, edited by Patricia Mazón and Reinhild Steingroever, 27–60. Rochester: University of Rochester Press. Fenner, Angelica. 2010. “Cinematic Discourses of Race and Reconstruction in Transnational Perspective.” In From Black to Schwarz: Cultural Crossover Between African America and Germany, edited by Maria Diedrich and Jürgen Heinrichs, 227–244. Berlin: LIT Verlag. Foucault, Michel. 1969. L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Éditions Gallimard. Fredrickson, George. 2002. Racism: A Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Freire, Paolo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Friedrichsmeyer, Sara, Sara Lennox, and Susanne Zantop, eds. 1999. The Imperialist Imagination: German Colonialism and Its Legacy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Goldberg, David Theo. 1993. Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gray, Sally Hatch. 2012. “Kant’s Race Theory, Forster’s Counter, and the Metaphysics of Color.” The Eighteenth Century 53 (4): 393–412. Grosse, Pascal. 2005. “What Does German Colonialism Have to Do with National Socialism? A Conceptual Framework.” In Germany’s Colonial Pasts, edited by Eric Ames, Marcia Klotz, and Lora Wildenthal, 115–134. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

6  DOCUMENTS OF COLONIALISM AND RACIAL THEORIZING … 

117

Hegel, G.W.F. 1830. “Anthropologie.” Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse. http://www.hegel.de/werke_frei/startfree.html: § 393–394. Henderson, Ingeborg. 1991. “Addressing Diversity: A Call for Action.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 24 (1): 4–9. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3530634. Hofer, Walther, ed. 1957. Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933–1945. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag. Jennings, M., and M. Lynn. 2005. “The House that Race Built: Critical Pedagogy, African-American Education, and the Re-conceptualization of a Critical Race Pedagogy.” Educational Foundations 19 (3–4): 15–32. Kaes, Anton, and Eric Rentschler. “How to Read a Narrative Film.” Handout. Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime. Translated by John T. Goldthwaite. Berkeley: University of California Press. Layne, Priscilla D. 2018. White Rebels in Black: German Appropriation of Black Popular Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lessing, G.E. 1766. Laokoon. Oder: Über die Grenzen der Malerei und Poesie. Mit beiläufigen Erläuterungen verschiedener Punkte der alten Kunstgeschichte. Project Gutenberg.DE. http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/1176/28. Massaquoi, Hans J. 1999. “Neger, Neger, Schornsteinfeger!”: Meine Kindheit in Deutschland. München: Knaur. Opitz, May. 1986. Excerpts. In Farbe bekennen: Afro-deutsche Frauen auf den Spuren ihrer Geschichte, edited by Katharina Oguntoye, May Opitz, and Dagmar Schultz, 17–65, 85–99, 127–142. Berlin: Orlando Frauenverlag. Owens, Jay. 2018. “The Age of Post-Authenticity and the Ironic Truths of Meme Culture.” Medium. Accessed 11 April 2018. http://bit.ly/2y1rorS. Parr, Rolf, and Jürgen Link. 1990. “Semiotische Diskursanalyse.” In Neue Literaturtheorien: eine Einführung, edited by Tilmann Köppe and Simone Winko, 107–30. Opladen: Weststadt Verlag. Partridge, Damani. 2012. Hypersexuality and Headscarves: Race, Sex, and Citizenship in the New Germany. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. Quijano, Anibal. 2000. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism and Latin America.” Nepantla 1 (3): 533–80. Raphael-Hernandez, Heike, and Pia Wiegmink. 2017. “German Entanglements in Transatlantic Slavery: An Introduction.” Atlantic Studies 14 (4): 419–35. http://doi.org/10.1080/14788810.2017.1366009. Rosenberg, Alfred. 1930. Der Mythos des 20. Jahrhunderts. Munich. Roth, Paul A. 2004. “Hearts of Darkness: ‘Perpetrator History’ and Why There Is No Why.” History of the Human Sciences 17 (2–3): 211–51. http://doi. org/10.1177/0952695104047303.

118  E. TORNER Sarrazin, Thilo. 2010. Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen. Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Schmitt, Carl. 1932. Der Begriff des Politischen. http://will.rewi.hu-berlin.de/ files/WS%202012%2013/VL%20SP%202%20201213/Der%20Begriff%20 des%20Politischen.pdf. Şenocak, Zafer. 2011. “Mein erster Türke in Deutschland - ein Fremder.” In Deutschsein – Eine Aufklärungsschrift, 145–59. Hamburg: Körber-Stiftung. Slobodian, Quinn. 2016. “Socialist Chromatism: Race, Racism, and the Racial Rainbow in East Germany.” In Comrades of Color, edited by Quinn Slobodian, 23–35. New York: Berghahn. Sow, Noah. 2009. Deutschland - Schwarz Weiß: Der alltägliche Rassismus. München: Wilhelm Goldmann Verlag. Stoler, Ann Laura. 2002. “Racial Histories and Their Regimes of Truth.” In Race Critical Theories: Text and Context, edited by Philomena Essed and David Theo Goldberg, 369–91. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Tatlock, Lynne. 2010. “USA: German in the Changing Landscape of Postsecondary Education.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 43 (1): 11–21. Torner, Evan. 2013. The Race-Time Continuum: Race Projection in DEFA Genre Cinema. PhD Dissertation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst. ———. 2016. “The DEFA ‘Indianerfilm’: Narrating the Postcolonial Through Gojko Mitic.” In Re-imagining DEFA. East German Cinema in Its National and Transnational Context, edited by Seán Allan and Sebastian Heiduschke, 227–47. New York: Berghahn Books. Waibel, Harry. 2008. Kritik des Rassismus in der DDR. Self-published. http:// www.harrywaibel.de/anlagen_archiv/Kritik%20des%20Rassismus%20in%20 der%20DDR.pdf. Woltmann, Ludwig. 1903. Politische Anthropologie. Leipzig and Eisenach: Eugen. Wright, Michelle. 2015. Physics of Blackness: Beyond the Middle Passage Epistemology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

CHAPTER 7

Decolonizing the Mental Lexicon: Critical Whiteness Studies Perspectives in the Language Classroom Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

If the field of German Studies1 can be said to have an origin point, it might be the 1846 Germanistentag in Frankfurt. This interdisciplinary meeting united scholars of German literature and Germanic linguistics, legal scholars, historians, and folklorists with a common interest in the German national project.2 In attendance was the historical painter Wilhelm Lindenschmit (1806–1848), who used the meeting as an opportunity to present Jakob Grimm (1785–1863), presiding over the

1 Later

in the essay we will address distinctions between German Studies and Germanistik as fields of inquiry. 2 A description of the meeting and texts of the talks given was published as Verhandlungen der Germanisten zu Frankfurt am Main am 24., 25. und 26. September 1846 (Sauerländer, 1847). Many of the participants went on participate in the Frankfurter Nationalversammlung during the 1848 revolution.

M. Gallagher (*)  University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA C. Zenker  Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_7

119

120  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER

meeting, with a book he had written titled Die Räthsel der Vorwelt, oder: Sind die Deutschen eingewandert? Lindenschmit’s book concerned the very origins of the German people. Using linguistic, historical, and physiological evidence, Lindenschmit argues Germans were the indigenous people of Europe and the only unmixed race: “Der deutsche Mensch allein ist der wirkliche weisse Mann,” he wrote (1846, p. 46: The German alone is the true white man).3 Lindenschmit offers an example of how the earliest moments of German Studies as an interdisciplinary venture were, at least for some, deeply entwined with discourses of whiteness and German national identity. The field of German Studies as practiced in the United States has come a long way since the 1846 meeting in Frankfurt. It has largely broken with its German counterpart not only its canon but its theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of German literature and culture. While German Studies is certainly a great deal more critical and reflective regarding race and class than the kind of Germanistik that Lindenschmit represents, the question remains if it has truly made a radical break from foundational concepts of race and nation. In a 2018 article in German Quarterly, Jakob Norberg argues that Germanistik, in its origins, “was a form of nationalism in itself” if not “the quintessential nationalist enterprise” (p. 1). Literary scholars, linguists, historians, and folklorists similar to those who gathered in Frankfurt in 1846 formed a canon, established a literary and cultural history, described the customs of the German people, and helped call into being the nation itself (Norberg 2018, p. 1). In an article about nationalism and German literary history, Klaus Gille similarly notes, “the myth of the Volk and the construction of the linguistic nation connected to it were extraordinarily important” for the field of Germanistik (1999, p. 33). Norberg argues that not only is the discipline still reliant on the national paradigm (2018, pp. 4, 12) but that this is a desirable state of affairs (pp. 13–14). A glance at common introductory German language textbooks used in North America demonstrates this reliance on the national and would likely present an image of Germanness not completely foreign to the attendees of the Germanistentag, focusing on the German people, their language, music, poetry and stories, their unique history and 3 Wolf D. Hund uses this example to open his recent history of race and racialization in Germany, Wie die Deutschen weiß wurden: Kleine (Heimat)Geschichte des Rassismus (Metzler 2017).

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

121

importance to Europe. How far does this approach differ from that of early Germanists, who “retrieved and restored Germanic texts, mapped out the grammars of Germanic languages, constructed a German canon, told histories of German literature, and collected information about Germanic customs and traditions—all efforts dedicated to the delineation of a German culture worthy of preservation and reverent attention” (Norberg, p. 1)? Most introductory textbooks relegate Austria and Switzerland to a subordinate role and often omit the Germanspeaking population of countries like Liechtenstein and Namibia entirely (German was an official language in the latter until 1990), to say nothing of the much more complicated linguistic and historical cases of the Pennsylvania Dutch, German colonial subjects, the Volga Germans, or the residents of the multi-ethnic and multi-lingual Habsburg empire. At most, the majority of textbooks devote one or two chapters late in the book to “die Deutschen im Ausland” or immigration. This chapter will discuss how Critical Whiteness Studies and critical pedagogy can be used in the language classroom as a way to de-center the whiteness historically entwined with German Studies. Specifically, the chapter will outline how Critical Whiteness Studies and ­ critical pedagogy can lead to more racialized understandings of language and nation. Finally, the chapter will offer a lesson plan focused on foreignness and identity in Germany and Austria, which exemplifies the approaches for which we advocate. Using two films—Sven Halfar’s Yes I Am! (2006) and Paul Poet’s Ausländer raus! Schlingensiefs Container (2002)—our lesson for an intermediate German course makes use of diverse content to prompt students to reflect on the German language, German identity, and what it means to be a minority in a Germanspeaking country. The choice of these films is informed by our wish to highlight the experience of racial and ethnic minorities in both Germany and Austria, as well as in the former East Germany (GDR). This lesson plan offers a model for content that reflects an engagement with questions of race and privilege and a way of de-centering whiteness in the language classroom and helps students develop a critical lexicon through discussing the concepts family and Heimat (Day 1), Leitkultur (Day 2), space and representation (Day 3), voting and structural racism (Day 4), structural racism and Leitkultur (Day 5), and the role of art in cultural critique (Day 6). A seventh day is devoted to debriefing and drawing conclusions. Finally, the lesson plan includes four assessment options tailored to the material.

122  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER

1  Critical Race Theory, Critical Whiteness Studies, and Critical Pedagogy The lesson plan described at the end of this essay and outlined on the Diversity and Decolonization website is centered on the idea of being an Ausländer and is inspired by lessons from the areas of Critical Whiteness Studies, critical race theory, and critical pedagogy. Barbara Applebaum defines Critical Whiteness Studies as a “body of scholarship whose aim is to reveal the invisible structures that produce and reproduce white supremacy and privilege” (2016, p. 1). The purpose of using insights from Critical Whiteness Studies in the classroom is not to make whiteness the center of discussion but rather to “disrupt white dominated systems of power” (Applebaum 2016, p. 2). To achieve this ­disruption, it is necessary to center the experience and voices of minorities and those who experience oppression, as outlined in Paolo Freire’s critical pedagogy. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire offers a model of education as liberatory and transformative and advocates for “a pedagogy which must be forged with, not for, the oppressed (whether individuals or peoples) in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity. This pedagogy makes oppression and its causes objects of reflection by the oppressed, and from that reflection will come their necessary engagement in the struggle for their liberation” (Freire 2018, p. 48). Relatively little has been written about the use of Critical Whiteness Studies or critical pedagogy approaches in foreign language classes,4 but the ACTFL publication Words and Actions: Teaching Languages Through the Lens of Social Justice offers concrete exercises for creating lesson plans in this mold, including lesson plan templates, a guide to supplement or alter textbook content, and a list of social justice themes, objectives, and activities, and tips for incorporating service learning. Examples of social justice-focused lesson in the language classroom include analyzing a scene from the movie Aladdin for racist and stereotypical representations of Arabic speakers, supplementing textbook images of families with other examples that show greater diversity, and having students analyze German media coverage of the Arab Spring in an AP German class.

4 Most published research on critical pedagogy and Critical Whiteness Studies comes from the fields of English as a second language and teacher education, rather than second language acquisition.

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

123

Using critical pedagogy in the language classroom requires incorporating critical classroom practices that reflect an engagement with questions of identity and identity-making and that undermine the assumption that all German speakers look and sound a certain way. In Teaching to Transgress, bell hooks elaborates on Freire’s influence on her work and the importance of developing critical consciousness: “Freire’s work, in its global understanding of liberation struggles, always emphasizes that this is the important initial stage of transformation–that historical moment when one begins to think critically about the self and identity in relation to one’s political circumstance” (2010, p. 47). German identity—like any national identity—is not static or singular but rather is complicated and contested and is always in the process of being created and redefined. Classroom content and practices should question the meaning of Germanness, what German looks like, and who is German by showing the diversity of contemporary speakers of German and including students at all language levels in the linguistic community of German speakers.5 The instructor is an embodied presence in the classroom who has multiple and intersecting identities and should acknowledge and problematize these identities rather than uncritically become a representative of Germany and Germanness. Our students also walk through the world with multiple intersecting complicated identities that they do not leave behind at the classroom door. Making use of critical pedagogy thus calls for understanding and incorporating the existing intercultural competencies of our students. From day one, our students should be treated as equal members of the linguistic community of German speakers who can be creative and inventive with their use of language rather than as automatons who should correctly reproduce the words, structures, and categories of the German language. Teaching and learning German in the United States occurs in different institutional contexts with different communicative and pedagogical goals than it does in Germany. Bradley Boovy has criticized an approach to the teaching of German in the United States that is “bound to European geographies” and disconnected “from the spaces our students inhabit from day to day” (2016, p. 140). Integration into German society is not the primary goal of instruction in US German classrooms.

5 This

is addressed directly on day three of the lesson.

124  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER

Instead, a major or minor in German is often pitched to students as a value-add to another degree program or career path that may or may not take students to a country where German is spoken. For example, the Goethe Institute uses the slogan, “Just Add German” to encourage the study of German and show how German is “a great way to open doors to new opportunities.” The ability to communicate in the target language while on study abroad or when speaking to a native speaker is one potential goal of language instruction, but it occurs as part of a broader humanities education that emphasizes written and oral communication skills, critical thinking, as well as global and cross-cultural awareness. The humanities are often presented as transformative. Gerald Greenberg, for example, writes in “The Tao of the Liberal Arts,” that the result of a liberal arts education is the “cultivation of the habits of the mind so graduates can develop and mature into successful, productive members of society who can appreciate others, experience and embrace the notion of empathy, and come to understand the joys and benefits of lifelong learning” (2015, n.p.). Language and culture studies instruction is, in this context, articulated as an antidote to monolingualism and mononationalism, a way to encourage students to broaden their horizons, think differently about the world, and reflect critically on their place in it.

2  Race, Nation, and Language This section explores linguistic conceptions of German nationalism and discusses how German identity is racialized in spite of state policies that are officially race-blind. In fact, this race-blindness can further ideas about hegemonic whiteness that can and should be challenged in the classroom. With the field of German Studies being predominantly white, it is important to be mindful of the role of the dominant culture and uneven power dynamics in instructional and institutional contexts. This section will also discuss notions of Heimat and the assimilationist rhetoric that sometimes surrounds the teaching of German in Germany. Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) offered a model of cultural nationalism predicated on unification of a people, a language, and a territory (now sometimes referred to as the “Herderian triad”). The European Union and European integration have changed state-making in Germany, but debates about language and Leitkultur in the German context show the persistence of a Herderian nationalism founded on

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

125

the idea of a shared language.6 The recent arrival of large numbers of refugees in Germany has only strengthened the rhetoric of assimilation tied to language acquisition. Consider, for example, the tagline of Katrin Gildner’s practitioner blog “Sprache ist Integration” (language is integration), which aims to offer practical advice for those who want to teach German to refugees and asylum seekers: “Sprache ist der Schlüssel zur Integration. Lasst uns die Neuankömmlinge wilkommen heißen, indem wir ihnen den Schlüssel reichen” (Language is the key to integration. Let’s welcome the new arrivals by handing them the key).7 Asserting the importance of speaking the local language in order to fully participate in a society is not particularly controversial, but here language instruction is presented as a philanthropic gesture and a one-way exchange; there is a “we” who has something another needs and that can be given or gifted to them. The focus here is not communication or two-way exchange, but rather a one-way process whereby the “other” is granted the opportunity to learn the language of those in power. The rhetoric of Gildner’s blog is part of the increasing importance placed on language as a marker of what it means to be German, as David Gramling has argued. Gramling notes that the multiculturalism debates of the 1990s gave way to a new rhetoric of monolingualism with the German language as the primary marker of national belonging after the year 2000: “The threshold of belonging – indeed of civic presence or ‘being here’ in Germany had implicitly shifted from ethnic heritage to linguistic practice” (2009, p. 130). Take, for example, so-called integration courses (Integrationskurse) for immigrants to Germany, which consist of six hundred hours of language instruction and a comparatively small one hundred hours of Orientierungskurs (orientation course) covering history and culture. The “Make it in Germany” web portal, designed for workers from abroad seeking to immigrate to Germany (available in the Spanish, French, and English languages, in addition to German) 6 Sarah Eigen and Mark Larrimore’s edited volume The German Invention of Race (SUNY, 2006) argues for the importance of German-language thinkers of the Enlightenment like Herder in contributing to modern conceptions of race. Sven Halfar’s Yes I Am! discusses the Brothers Keepers and Sisters Keepers album Lightkultur, a play on the idea of Leitkultur (1:29:59–1:31:37). Days two and five of the lesson deal with conceptions of language and nationalism. 7 The phrase “Sprache ist der Schlüssel zur Integration” comes up frequently in discussions of immigration to Germany. It also appears in Paul Poet’s film, where the container roommates take German lessons every morning (25:55–26:10).

126  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER

explains, “Die Integrationskurse sind für alle gedacht, die neu in Deutschland kommen und sich mit ihrem Deutsch noch nicht problemlos im Alltag zurechtfinden” (Integration courses are meant for all those who are new to Germany and don’t yet get along in their daily lives with their German without any problems). A language course is presented as a way to learn to fit in smoothly, to not be, cause, or have a problem. Here, again, it is a one-way process, it is only the newly arrived who need to adapt and change. Problems and frictions can also be productive, provoking criticism and examination, as well as moments of cross-cultural understanding.8 In addition to being a type of linguistic nationalism, German nationalism is also racialized. Gille observes that German nationalism is based on a sense of belonging that relies on a shared sense of cultural heritage (Kultur) and an idea of national character that is “based on biological and racial principles” (1999, p. 35). Melanie Bee, an American teacher of English in Germany who adopts a focus on social justice and teaches a “U.S. developed approach to anti-racist education in a classroom in Berlin” (2013, p. 1) writes that “National identity and racial identity are so tightly interwoven they are actually one thing in Germany” (2013, p. 2). In an ethnographic study, Ulrike Anne Müller similarly argues, drawing on Tina Campt (2004), “that in Germany the particular local character of whiteness manifests itself as a racialized cultural identity” (2011, p. 621) and “race and nation are being placed side by side in the discursive structure of German whiteness” (2011, p. 626). These scholarly and personal observations of the importance of race to German national identity run counter to official rhetoric of race-­ blindness. Heide Fehrenbach writes in Race After Hitler, “Over the course of my research, I have come to realize just how much historical evidence and social experience had to be ignored to claim the emergence of a race-blind German polity and bureaucracy after 1945” (2005, p. 6). After the Second World War, words like “Rasse” (German for “race”) became taboo in official communications in Germany while race nonetheless remained an important category in practice, as Fehrenbach’s study of mixed-race Germans in post-war Germany shows (Fehrenbach 2005, p. 6). Many of Müller’s interview partners expressed a profound

8 The business world sometimes talks about “productive friction,” a term coined by John Hagel and John Seely Brown in a 2005 Harvard Business Review article.

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

127

discomfort with talking about both race and national identity, with some even accusing her research of being racist (2011, p. 626). The assumption that to be German means to be white can lead to a failure to recognize white supremacy and structural racism. For example, it is unknown how many People of Color live in Germany because there are no official census records regarding race; Germany tracks statistics only by the categories of citizenship, country of origin, or country of birth and “immigrant background” (Migrationshintergrund), which only allows for an incomplete picture of race and ethnicity (Ohliger 2008, p. 13). Ricardo Sunga of the United Nations Human Rights Counsel’s Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent noted after a visit of the working group to several cities in Germany to investigate discrimination against people of African descent in Germany that the “serious lack of ethnicity-based disaggregated data” helps to “obscure the magnitude of structural and institutional racism people of African descent face” (2017, n.p.). The attempted erasure of racial categories does not erase racism in practice. In an essay about Afro-German identity, Michelle Wright coined the phrase “others-from-within from without” to describe how, in spite of a shared language and culture, Afro-Germans are still misrecognized as outsiders (2003, p. 298). In addition to this foreignizing of domestic racial minorities, there is a tendency to portray racism as a problem only of countries other than Germany. Noah Sow writes in Deutschland Schwarz Weiß, “‘Rassismus’ gibt es, wenn man deutschen Medien Glauben schenken mag, immer nur anderswo: in Südafrika, in den USA, in Frankreich” (2018, p. 18: If you believe the German media, racism only exists elsewhere: in South Africa, in the United States, in France). Similarly, in the film Yes I Am! Wolfgang Thierse, president of the German Bundestag, engages in a conversation with members of Brothers Keepers and Sisters Keepers where he mentions xenophobia, intolerance, antisemitism, and right-wing extremism but fails to use the word racism (1:29:59–1:31:37), highlighting the common erasure or dislocation of race and racism from German contexts. The way language and a racialized understanding of linguistic nationalism shapes German society can be seen in contemporary political discourse. See the reaction of Beatrix von Storch, a member of the far-right white supremacist political party Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany, AfD), to a tweet of New Year’s greetings in Arabic by the Cologne police. She tweeted, “Was zur Hölle ist in diesem Land los? Wieso twittert eine offizielle Polizeiseite aus NRW auf Arabisch.

128  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER

Meinen Sie, die barbarischen, muslimischen, gruppenvergewaltigenden Männerhorden so zu besänftigen?” (What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is an official police page from North Rhine-Westphalia tweeting in Arabic. Do you expect to appease the barbaric, Muslim, mass-raping hordes of men in this way?)9 Although the Cologne police issued that message in many commonly spoken languages, including English and French, it was only the tweet in Arabic that provoked this vociferously racist and Islamophobic reaction, underscoring the connection between linguistic nationalism and racism. Compare a US-American who moves to Berlin to work at a tech start-up and a Turkish-German, born in Germany to a Turkish-speaking household. One is a welcome addition and the other is often seen as a social problem in need of fixing through a language course.10 German SPD politician Johann Saathoff criticized this kind of linguistic fundamentalism in a tongue-in-cheek manner in March 2018 when he gave a speech on the floor of the German Parliament in his native dialect of Plattdeutsch, which may as well be a foreign language to many speakers of Hochdeutsch. Saathoff of the left-wing social democrats gave his speech as a protest in response to the racialized nationalism of the AfD, which had recently offered a proposal to amend the constitution to make German the official national language. Another important concept for understanding German linguistic nationalism is that of Heimat.11 The difficult-to-translate word that roughly means home or homeland refers to a kind of nationalism or patriotism based on regional identity.12 The term is strongly associated with post-WWII genre of the Heimatfilm, characterized by “generic storylines and stereotyped figures” and generally set in rural southern Germany (Ludewig 2014, p. 9). Jochen Bittner wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times that offered a sanitized vision of Heimat as a new aspirational model for nationalism and a “counter-concept to globalism,”

9 Storch’s tweet was very controversial, prompting a suspension of her Twitter account and a criminal complaint, documented in an article in Spiegel Online on January 1, 2018. 10 Melanie Bee also notes in her essay that she was advised she didn’t need to take an Integrationskurs when she migrated to Germany: “The reason I’m not seen as a migrant in need of integration is because I’m white, middle-class, and well-educated” (2013, p. 2). 11 The concept of Heimat is discussed at length in the first day of the lesson. 12 See, for example, the discussion in Celia Applegate’s A Nation of Provincials (pp. 2–10).

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

129

but authors and scholars have long been critical of the concept for how it can be used as an exclusionary force.13 The establishment of a national ministry for Heimat under the leadership of conservative Bavarian politician Horst Seehofer was met with derision on social media, where users associated it with kitschy symbols such as pretzels, beer, dirndl, and lederhosen (Escritt 2018, n.p.). Heiko Maas, Minister of Foreign Affairs, dismisses this kind of “verkitschte Vergangenheit” (kitschified past) to argue instead for a notion of Heimat “durch gemeinsame Werte bestimmt, nicht durch Herkunft oder Hautfarbe” (determined through shared values, not through origin or skin color) that is based on constitutional principles, inclusive and “grenzenlos” (without borders) (2018, n.p.). In our classrooms we must be careful not to reproduce the biases and inequalities of German society but instead to actively subvert them and offer alternative models of identity and belonging. Concepts like Heimat, which underscore the approach of many textbooks to teaching about German culture, cannot be uncritically carried over into a language classroom that is outside of and distinct from the German nation. The diverse student body at most United States educational institutions, which might include immigrant students, minority students, students with multiple citizenships, and undocumented students, requires a more nuanced and complicated approach to Heimat and nation. It is, of course, not only the changing demographics of student populations in the United States that call for a decolonial approach. All students should engage with questions of race, nationalism, and belonging as part of a thoughtful and critical humanities and foreign language education that works to help students become engaged and reflective global citizens. The L2 classroom offers a unique opportunity to think about questions of identity, belonging, foreignness, and outsiderdom. Think of the authors of this article: a German citizen, who teaches German in a US classroom and a US citizen who, while writing this essay, had a postdoctoral fellowship at a German university to carry out German Studies 13 For a more critical take on Heimat see Eure Heimat ist unser Albtraum, edited by Fatma Aydemir and Hengameh Yaghoobifarah (2019), Gabriele Eichmanns and Yvonne Franke’s Heimat Goes Mobile: Hybrid Forms of Home in Literature and Film (2013) and Olaf Kühne and Antje Schönwald’s “Identität, Heimat sowie In- und Exklusion: Aspekte der sozialen Konstruktion von Eigenem und Fremdem als Herausforderung des Migrationszeitalters,” in Internationalisierung der Gesellschaft und die Auswirkungen auf die Raumentwicklung Beispiele aus Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz und dem Saarland, edited by Birte Nienaber and Ursula Roos (2015).

130  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER

research. Which one then is the insider and which is the outsider? The native German speaker teaching German in a foreign country or the native English speaker doing German Studies work in Germany? The instructor guide that follows outlines lessons for an intermediate course, showing that the lessons of critical pedagogy and Critical Whiteness Studies can be incorporated at an early language level by remaining student-centered, making identity a focus, being critical and reflective with vocabulary choice and instruction, and resisting the discourse of foreignness that often surrounds the first two years of language instruction. At various levels, an instructor can introduce vocabulary to talk about aspects of identity like race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, and class, discuss where the semantic fields of the words “race” and “Rasse” intersect, overlap, and how they differ, compare how immigration and citizenship function differently in US and German contexts, and probe the limits of the German language regarding issues such as gender-neutral language and gender-neutral pronouns.

3  Instructor Guide This section provides a theoretical guideline for teaching ten single lessons on the concepts of Heimat, Leitkultur, and Repräsentation by focusing on Sven Halfar’s Yes I Am! (2007) in conjunction with Paul Poet’s Ausländer raus! Schlingensiefs Container (2002). In developing these plans, we follow Theresa Schenker and Robert Munro (2016) in their encouragement to include more Afro-German texts into the German teaching curriculum. For this teaching unit, we discuss two documentaries depicting belonging, representation, and racism in Germany and Austria in terms of Shu-mei Shih’s relational comparison (2015, p. 432). Shih’s relational comparison cautions the instructor not to reproduce (implicit) bias or power structures as they can be simplistic but to focus on the relation of works in order to create a more complex and nuanced picture of the topic. Moving away and beyond teaching units toward an integrated, decolonialized curriculum would be ideal, but the increase of such teaching units is an important first step. A detailed day-to-day instructor guide is in Appendix E. Lesson plans, handouts, and accompanying power points can be found on this website: https:// diversityingermancurriculum.weebly.com/. Level and Student Population: These lesson plans are for intermediate German students. Parts of this program were piloted with students

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

131

at the end of their first year of German study in a course of 50 minutes in length with five contact hours per week, as well as in two intermediate language courses, each with two contact hours per week at Washington University in St. Louis (WashU) in 2017 and 2018. The student population at WashU is predominantly white (53.63% as of Spring 2018)14 while the faculty was 80% white as of Fall 2017.15 The German department additionally attracts a large exchange student population that is not as familiar with American popular culture or politics, which serve as a comparison and common ground, even if implicitly, in many of the activities and discussions.16 Global Objectives: In this unit, students will begin to engage with (1) topics of complex identities, (2) questions of belonging and Heimat, (3) self- as well as external identification via the term Leit- and Lightkultur, and (4) structural racism in the German context. The goal is to both disrupt whiteness as the German norm in the classroom and to focus on vocabulary instruction that trains the students’ sociocultural communication skills for sensitive terms with complex cultural histories. Metalinguistic awareness of the ambiguity of terms and their history is hard to teach and needs careful introduction as well as the instructor’s guidance. Therefore, activities in this teaching unit focus on vocabulary presentation and input to create an “incremental (gradual) buildup of different aspects of vocabulary over time” (Barcroft 2012, p. 12, italics in original). In the following lessons, students learn about the history of racism in Germany and Austria and gain new vocabulary for discussing structural racism, belonging, and integration that can be applied to the speaking context as well as their own backgrounds. Students consider the role of language in inter- and multi-cultural contexts, encounter concepts and examples of structural racism via Tupoka Ogette’s and Noah Sow’s antiracism frameworks.

14 According to the Office of the University Registrar: www.registrar.wustl.edu/student-information-systems/student-enrollment-and-graduation-statistics/student-bodydiversity/. 15 According to the University Provost: www.provost.wustl.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2018/02/WU-Faculty-Diversity-Detail-Snapshot-Fall-2017.pdf. 16 25% of students who take German in the German department in Fall 2018 are international students, which is slightly more than the international student enrollment of 18.87% of WashU’s total enrollment in Fall 2018.

132  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER

Materials: Both Sven Halfar and Paul Poet’s documentaries deal with popular culture. They are available for purchase at common streaming services and on DVD with English subtitles. Yes I Am! follows three musicians, Mamadee, D-Flame and Abé Bantu. Specifically, the film concerns Abé Bantu’s founding of the organization Brothers Keepers, which uses music as a political message to empower young people and change politics because “music is the weapon of the future” (0:00:16). In opposition to that, Christoph Schlingensief’s container installation in Austria in the year 2001, documented in Paul Poet’s film, focuses on Austria’s Nazi past, contemporary elections in Austria and racism just beneath the surface. In 2000, Luc Bondy, then head of the Vienna Music Weeks, invited the provocative Schlingensief to present an art project that would bring political discussion to the Vienna Music Weeks which took place June 6–17, 2000. In five containers, twelve actors posing as asylum seekers find refuge before being deported by popular vote on a website that gives everyone insight into their lives. The slogan “Wählen Sie Ihren Ausländer!” [Vote for your foreigner!] invites the public to choose one person who will be the winner of this contest.17 Popular culture in Ausländer raus! appears via media concepts like the TV show Big Brother that influenced Schlingensief’s container project as well as political discussions that emerge and erupt among people on the street next to Schlingensief’s media installation. Paul Poet’s Ausländer Raus! shows the defensiveness in the audience’s reaction when confronted with a critique on Austrian nationalism and racism in the form of a highly provocative art project. It teaches students how art can reveal these social structures. Through Poet’s political documentary and Schlingensief’s provocative voice, students can engage with the symbolic value of cities and urban symbols in time and space. The film also shows the importance of a language training that focuses not only on language skills. Language instruction can be shifted to focus on critical self-reflection while practicing empathy and listening to radical opinions. The second documentary Yes I am! shows, through the eyes of three musicians, how important it is to talk about the ignorance, as well as lack of knowledge and discourse, around belonging and national borders in the German context. In addition, Halfar’s documentary reveals 17 More detailed information about the project can be found on Schlingensief’s website: http://www.schlingensief.com/backup/wienaktion/.

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

133

moments where education in German schools draws importance to the influence and impact of what is brought to the students’ attention. In Yes I am!, the responsibility of bringing topics around social justice and belonging beyond certain normative social markers lies in the hands of Afro-German musicians. Using these two texts in a college language class can open the learning environment in a way that challenges teachers and students to become more aware of the importance of decolonizing their mental lexicon when learning new vocabulary, connotations, and social contexts. Two important German texts for anti-racist training are Tupoka Ogette’s Exit Racism (2016) and artist Noah Sow’s Deutschland Schwarz Weiß: Der alltägliche Rassismus (2018). Ogette and Sow offer anti-racist frameworks to help people discover racism in every-day German language and cultural practices. These texts can be employed in a language classroom that introduces new vocabulary to students by offering valuable critical tools to reflect on the connection between language and culture while exploring and using a foreign language. Both authors present a new way of interrogating identity and practicing inclusion by critically reflecting racism in the German-speaking context. They redefine markers of what racism means in the German context and are examples that have stirred up German society. The Role of the Instructor: Teaching from, and enacting, a decolonial perspective is a challenging endeavor in a language classroom. While students need guidance to expand their language skills and the ability to make mistakes in a safe space and learn from them, the instructor needs to be aware of their own role as the guide, instructor, mentor and model for communication, sociocultural competence, and metalinguistic awareness in the target language. At the same time, teaching German from the perspective of a university outside of Germany provides an angle to dissect and explore underlying bias and connotations in the mental lexicon. This perspective radically opens the classroom to conversations that would, potentially, be impossible in a language more closely linked to the students’ own identity. This might be one of the reasons why DaF (Deutsch als Fremdsprache) lacks publications in the field of anti-racism work in the German language. Books to familiarize oneself as an instructor with the strategies of teaching intercultural competence that focuses on the disruption of whiteness are Tupoka Ogette’s Exit Racism (2017), bell hooks’ Teaching to Transgress (1994) and Teaching Critical Thinking (2010).

134  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER

Books that focus on research about vocabulary instruction are Joe Barcroft’s Input-Based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction (2012) and Vocabulary in Language Teaching (2016) and Patsy M. Lightbown and Nina Spada’s How Languages Are Learned (2003).

References Applebaum, Barbara. 2016. “Critical Whiteness Studies.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Applegate, Celia. 1990. A Nation of Provincials: The German Idea of Heimat. Oakland: University of California Press. Ausländer Raus! Schlingensiefs Container. 2002. Directed by Paul Poet. Vienna, Austria: Bonus Film/Filmgalerie 451. Aydemir, Fatma, and Hengameh Yaghoobifarah, eds. 2019. Eure Heimat ist unser Albtraum. Berlin: Ullstein. Barcroft, Joe. 2012. Input-Based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction. Annapolis Junction: Tesol. Barcroft, Joe. 2016. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. New York: Routledge. Bee, Melanie. 2013. “Critical Whiteness: False Friend? Teaching a U.S. Antiracism Curriculum in Germany.” Transformative Justice. https://www. transformativejustice.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Critical-WhitenessFalse-Friend.pdf. Originally published in German as “Critical Whiteness – ein falscher Freund? Antirassistische Lehrpläne für den Unterricht aus den USA und ihre Übersetzung in Deutschland.” ZAG antirassistische Zeitschrift 61: 23–26. http://goo.gl/fZS4by. Bittner, Jochen. 2018. “Why the World Should Learn to Say ‘Heimat.’” New York Times, February 28. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/opinion/america-heimat-germany-politics.html. Boovy, Bradley. 2016. “German Beyond the Classroom: From Local Knowledge to Critical Language Awareness.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 49 (2): 140–46. Campt, Tina. 2004. Other Germans: Black Germans and the Politics of Race, Gender, and Memory in the Third Reich. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Eichmanns, Gabriele, and Yvonne Franke, eds. 2013. Heimat Goes Mobile: Hybrid Forms of Home in Literature and Film. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Eigen, Sara, and Mark Larrimore, eds. 2006. The German Invention of Race. Albany: State University of New York Press.

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

135

Escritt, Thomas. 2018. “Home Is Where the Heimat Is: Germans Bemused by New Ministry.” Reuters, February 8. https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-germany-politics-heimat/home-is-where-the-heimat-is-germans-bemusedby-new-ministry-idUSKBN1FS2UD. Fehrenbach, Heide. 2005. Race After Hitler: Black Occupation Children in Postwar Germany and America. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Freire, Paulo. 2018. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Gildner, Katrin. DaF für Flüghtlinge: Sprache ist Integration. Accessed 25 March 2018. https://sprache-ist-integration.de/. Gille, Klaus F. 1999 “Germanistik and Nation in the 19th Century.” In Yearbook of European Studies / Annuaire d’etudes europeennes 12, edited by Menno Spiering, 27–55. Leiden: Brill. Glynn, Cassandra, Pamela Wesely, and Beth Wassell. 2014. Words and Actions: Teaching Languages Through the Lens of Social Justice. Alexandria: ACTFL. Goethe Institute. “Just Add German.” Accessed 3 September 2018. www. goethe.de/ins/us/en/spr/wdl.html. Gramling, David. 2009. “The New Cosmopolitan Monolingualism: On Linguistic Citizenship in Twenty-First Century Germany.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German 42 (2): 130–40. Greenberg, Gerald. 2015. “The Tao of the Liberal Arts.” Washington Post, January 7. www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/01/07/ the-tao-of-the-liberal-arts/?utm_term=.4b34910968a0. hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. ———. Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge, 2010. Hund, Wolf D. 2017. Wie die Deutschen weiß wurden: Kleine (Heimat)Geschichte des Rassismus. Stuttgart: Metzler. “Integrationskurse.” Make it in Germany. Accessed 3 September 2018. www. make-it-in-germany.com/de/fuer-fachkraefte/leben/integrationskurse. Kühne, Olaf, and Antje Schönwald. 2015. “Identität, Heimat sowie In- und Exklusion: Aspekte der sozialen Konstruktion von Eigenem und Fremdem als Herausforderung des Migrationszeitalters.” In Internationalisierung der Gesellschaft und die Auswirkungen auf die Raumentwicklung: Beispiele aus Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz und dem Saarland, edited by Birte Nienaber and Ursula Roos, 100–10. Hannover: Arbeitsberichte der ARL. Lightbown, Patsy, and Nina Spada. 2003. How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

136  M. GALLAGHER AND C. ZENKER Lindenschmit, Wilhelm. 1846. Die Räthsel der Vorwelt, oder: Sind die Deutschen eingewandert? Mainz: Seifert. Ludewig, Alexandra. 2014. Screening Nostalgia: 100 Years of German Heimat Film. Bielefeld: Transcript. Maas, Heiko. 2018. “Werte des Grundgesetzes: Heimat ist dort, wo das Recht die Freiheit sichert.” Spiegel Online, February 25. http://www.spiegel.de/ politik/deutschland/heiko-maas-ueber-heimat-plaedoyer-fuer-einen-modernen-verfassungspatriotismus-a-1195044.html. Müller, Ulrike Anne. 2011. “Far Away So Close: Race, Whiteness, and German Identity.” Identities 18 (6): 620–45. Norberg, Jakob. 2018. “German Literary Studies and the Nation.” Special issue: The Politics of German Literature, The German Quarterly 91 (1): 1–7. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2017. “Germany Racial Profiling: UN Experts Highlight Situation of People of African Descent,” February 27. www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx? NewsID=21239&LangID=E. Ogette, Tupoka. 2017. Exit Racism: Rassimuskritisch Denken Lernen. Münster: Unrast. Ohliger, Rainer. 2008. Country Report on Ethnic Relations: Germany. EDUMIGRON Background Papers. Saathoff, Johann. 2018. “‘Man mutt ‘n gemeinsam Sproch hem’: SPDAbgeordneter kontert AfD auf Plattdeutsch.” Stern, March 2. https://www. stern.de/politik/deutschland/johann-saathoff–spd-abgeordneter-kritisiert-afd-im-bundestag-auf-plattdeutsch-7884390.html. Schenker, Theresa, and Robert Munro. 2016. “‘… but You Are Not German.’— Afro-German Culture and Literature in the German Language Classroom.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 49 (2): 172–85. Schlingensief, Christoph. “Bitte Liebe Österreich!” Accessed 9 April 2018. www. schlingensief.com/backup/wienaktion/. Shih, Shu-mei. 2015. “World Studies and Relational Comparison.” PMLA 130 (2): 430–38. “Streit um Silvester-Tweet: Polizei erstattet Strafanzeige gegen Beatrix von Storch.” 2018. Spiegel Online, January 1. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ deutschland/koelner-polizei-stellt-strafanzeige-gegen-beatrix-von-storch-a1185793.html. “Student Body Diversity,” Office of the University Registrar, Washington University in St. Louis. Accessed 15 September 2018. www.registrar.wustl. edu/student-information-systems/student-enrollment-and-graduationstatistics/student-body-diversity/. Sow, Noah. 2018 [2008]. Deutschland Schwarz Weiss: Der Alltägliche Rassismus. Norderstedt: BoD.

7  DECOLONIZING THE MENTAL LEXICON … 

137

Verhandlungen der Germanisten zu Frankfurt am Main am 24., 25. und 26. September 1846. 1847. Frankfurt a.M.: Sauerländer. Wright, Michelle M. 2003. “Others-from-Within from Without: Afro-German Subject Formation and the Challenge of a Counter-Discourse.” Callaloo 26 (2): 296–305. Yes I Am! 2007. Directed by Sven Halfar. Featuring Mamadee, D-Flame, Xavier Naidoo, and Abé Bantu. Hamburg, Germany: Filmtank.

CHAPTER 8

A Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence: Scaffolding the Shift from Culture-Specific to Culture-General Beate Brunow and Britton Newman

At Wofford College, the Department of Modern Languages, Literatures, and Cultures has for the last several years turned increased attention to the desired learning in the sphere of intercultural competence. Founded in 1854, Wofford College is a small, private liberal arts college in the South with approximately 1700 students. Affiliated with the United Methodist Church, Wofford’s mission emphasizes civic leadership and service to others and aims to prepare its students to make extraordinary and positive contributions to society (Wofford College 1998). Integrating intercultural learning in culture-specific and c­ulture-general terms has opened up our curriculum to conversations on identity, positionality, and the heterogeneity of cultures within the US and in the

B. Brunow (*)  University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. Newman  Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_8

139

140  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN

cultures we study in our curricula. This article will recount our journey, from the initial stages of familiarizing ourselves with the concept to the current state of implementing vertically throughout all language programs an intentional thread of intercultural development. The blueprint for this intercultural development, the Wofford College Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence (Appendix A), will be explained, as will the process through which we arrived at it. Our proposed framework both complicates learners’ assumptions about the homogeneity of cultures and challenges them to think more deeply about their own identity and its connections to cultural values and practices. The goal of the framework is to de-center learners’ ways of knowing and interacting with others. We will point to components of our model that, we believe, can make a significant contribution to decolonizing the teaching and learning that occurs inside and outside of our classrooms. In addition, our developmental model highlights the role foreign language curricula can play in creating and sustaining more equitable relationships and communities. Our framework does not provide curriculum units; it entails descriptions of developmental stages that can be applied to any curriculum. Our hope is not for others to adopt our model as is, but rather we hope to inspire readers in other institutions to pursue a similarly intentional articulation of their own goals within intercultural competence. We begin our article by providing a theoretical framework for our approach to linking intercultural learning and decolonization before situating our developmental model in relation to current theories on intercultural competence. A description of the current format of our developmental model then leads to specific curricular examples to showcase the work that has begun toward implementing our model. We provide examples from Spanish courses at the intermediate and advanced level and from an introductory German course.

1  Intercultural Learning and Decolonization Curricular and pedagogical approaches to decolonizing German Studies and other foreign language programs and curricula have to revisit and deconstruct our disciplines’ assumptions about target languages and cultures. On the macro-level, we have to investigate what perspectives inform our disciplines’ products and practices, from articulated learning outcomes and the content of our curricula to the methods

8  A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

141

that inform our teaching practices and forms of assessment. Of course, curriculum designers and instructors as well as our professional organizations and associations cannot exclude themselves from this process of inquiry. Wayne Au (2011), a critical curriculum scholar influenced by Paolo Freire’s (1970) critical pedagogy, reminds us that just like the learner, curriculum designer, and instructor, learning theories are already embedded with assumptions about how knowledge is constructed and how learner and instructor are positioned in the learning and teaching paradigm. As we critically evaluate our disciplines and our identities as practitioners, we also have to de-center learners and their assumptions about their native culture and language as well as about their own identity. We believe that by giving learners opportunities to develop their cultural self-awareness, understand their self-identity,1 and identify the beliefs and values that undergird the cultural products and practices of their lived experience, they can slowly let go of specific and stereotypical expectations regarding target languages and cultures. The intentional inclusion of scaffolded intercultural learning can provide opportunities to de-center our curricula; we can expand the cultural dimension of language pedagogy from the typical focus on culture-specific knowledge to a more culture-general approach that “organize[s] culture-specific data in ways that facilitate cross-cultural comparison and generalizability of knowledge” (Bathurst 2015, p. 210). In a pedagogy with more culture-general emphasis, learners and instructors have to practice ­self-reflexivity and navigate the heterogeneity of their own culture as well as of target cultures and languages. The culture-specific approach that tends to inform the development of traditional textbooks supports the notion that there is a specific “German” culture. When such an approach is coupled with tasks that ask learners to “compare and contrast,” it may reinforce simplistic notions of difference and commonalities across cultures. For example, the introductory textbook Vorsprung (2014), presents an activity called “(Stereo)typisch” (89) in which students select a subject (“Ein typischer Deutscher/ Eine typische Deutsche” and “Ein typischer Amerikaner/Eine typische Amerikanerin”), a verb, and an object from a given list. The sentences 1 We are using the term self-identity to highlight the notion that this identity emerges from the student and their development and is not based on external perceptions of certain characteristics.

142  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN

that can be constructed about a typical German or a typical American present ideas such as a typical German drinks only beer; a typical German eats pork; a typical American speaks only English; or a typical American always watches TV. The exercise comes with a note for the instructor: “It is important to discuss stereotypes and have students understand that they are potentially dangerous generalizations that do not apply to everybody” (89). Besides the fact that this exercise is culture-specific and reinforces that learning German is about Germans and Germany and not about other German-speaking cultures, culture-specific exercises such as this one leave little room for critical thinking about heterogeneity within cultures. While students may hesitate when constructing sentences about stereotypes in their own culture, unless instructors use this moment as an opportunity to discuss diversity within cultures, they are actively reinforcing perceptions of homogenous cultures. A culture-general approach, that builds on some culture-specific examples, prompts learners to critically examine their own culture and the heterogeneity within cultures. It emphasizes for students the elements of their learning that will be transferable to any new cultural setting and thereby provides learners with learning that is truly intercultural rather than specific to a single culture. A critical discussion of the heterogeneity of German culture might be dubbed a more thorough culture-specific teaching moment, insofar as it works within the umbrella of a single traditional national culture precisely to deconstruct the uniformity presumed to be present. Such an approach is an illustrative example of how instructors may build upon the culture-specific in order to reach the culture-general. To make this a meaningful culture-general moment, the instructor takes the added step of guiding students to recognize that, just as German culture and the students’ primary culture can only be understood through consideration of multiple dimensions of internal diversity, so any culture that a student may enter in the future will contain its own fissures, coalitions, and competing values that the skilled newcomer must take into account. We will discuss a more specific example from a beginning German class in the section below on integrating IC into the modern language curriculum. We argue that approaches to intercultural learning have to begin with developing one’s own cultural self-awareness and self-identity; these processes include reflections on power imbalances, for example in terms of racial, ethnic, gender, or religious differences as well as perceptions of self and others. The feminist concepts of positionality or situated

8  A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

143

knowledge and intersectionality prove crucial in any attempt to engage critically with one’s own positions of power. These concepts help us to see more diverse dimensions of identity and their relations to axes of power and structural inequalities, a crucial step to understanding not only our own cultures and societies but also to reflecting on how we teach and construct knowledge about other cultures. Standpoint theory (Hartsock 1998; Harding 1992) informs our intercultural work as it illuminates the notion of a lived experience and “privileged perspective” of marginalized groups who are able to see social structures from vantage points that often remain invisible to groups in power and whose epistemological insights hence differ from those who are in power. Similarly, Haraway’s concept of situated knowledge (1988) challenges the notion of true objectivity in that the production of knowledge occurs through human processes and interactions, and is thereby inevitably tied to positions of power (see also Stoetzler and Yuval-Davis 2002). Around the same time as gender studies began to challenge grand narratives and existing epistemological practices, anthropologists and ethnographers wrestled with the complexity of writing about other cultures and the connection between trying to understand others and self. James Clifford’s call for “rigorous partiality” (25) reminds us that cultures are not discrete and stable objects; instead, he invites readers to conceive of cultures as interactive (25), a quality which highlights the reflexivity of the process of learning about other cultures and self. In both self-regarding and other-regarding analyses, Kimberle Crenshaw’s (1991) notion of intersectionality provides a helpful lens for understanding how dimensions of identity continuously intersect and how intragroup differences through varying combinations of identities may shape or compound certain experiences. By analyzing oppressions and power imbalances from an intersectional perspective, Crenshaw argues that we can avoid “conflating or ignoring intragroup differences” (p. 1242). As these examples illustrate, both feminist and ethnographic theory point to the heterogeneity within cultures that are marked by diversity and dynamic (including transnational) interactions between diverse people that inform and shape different identities. Placed in a pedagogical context, all of these theoretical approaches to understanding and expanding “identity” require intentional, and developmentally appropriate, classroom interventions to first elicit and then problematize students’ notions of self, as well as to introduce other cultures in ways that respect their own internal diversity while remaining accessible to learners at the

144  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN

novice level. These theoretical approaches intertwine with our pedagogical approach of experiential learning and reflection and together, we argue, can provide a basis for a decolonized pedagogy.

2  Theoretical Basis for Our Developmental Model In this section, we will articulate our reason for creating our own model of IC. To contextualize our proposed developmental model, we will describe two axes along which existing models of IC differ and place the contributions of the most prominent IC researchers on these axes. While numerous models of IC already exist, we agree with interculturalist Darla Deardorff that blindly adopting an external definition or assessment approach is not a strategy that will yield learning results that fit with a department’s identity and mission. IC has emerged as a desired quality in institutions as different as multinational corporations, the military, and educational institutions, but vast differences of organizational mission require that the concept of IC be carefully considered by each organization in its own context. Furthermore, within a single organization, such as a college, practitioners must translate organization-wide missions into concrete, observable outcomes that fit the goals of that particular unit, department, or program. The array of dozens of definitions of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff 2011) can be organized along two axes: first, the degree to which the model privileges culture-specific or culture-general learning; and second, the degree of ethical commitment the model espouses. We will illustrate these axes through a discussion of some of the interculturalists most influential in our own thinking—US-based researchers Darla Deardorff, Milton Bennett, and Mitchell Hammer, and British interculturalist Michael Byram. Through her grounded-theory study of dozens of experts in the field of Intercultural Communication, including Byram and Hammer, Deardorff produced data showing the areas of overlap in their conceptions of IC (2006, pp. 249–50). Her Process Model of Intercultural Competence, which has contributed greatly to the emerging consensus definition of IC, presents IC as an iterative, reflective process through which learners address attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Deardorff argues that through a reflective process these three elements lead to internal and external outcomes. Priority falls on these external, observable outcomes, which frame IC as “[e]ffective and appropriate behavior and

8  A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

145

communication in an intercultural situation” (2006, p. 256). As she explains, this combination of “effective and appropriate” implies a stage of perspective taking; “[t]he learner can indicate to what degree he or she has been effective in an intercultural setting, but it is only the other person who can determine the appropriateness of behavior and communication in the interaction” (2006, pp. 73–74). Because her model focuses on process and not content of intercultural learning, Deardorff’s model is entirely culture-general. Milton Bennet’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (1993) proposes a linear model of IC that describes stages of development typified by specific attitudes. The linear structure of this model lends itself to quantitative assessment of IC, and in particular to pre-/ post- testing, and the updated form of the DMIS, known as the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC) (Hammer 2011), provides the theoretical foundation for the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), one of the most popular for-pay assessment tools for IC. Of note to language educators, neither the Deardorff definitional work nor the Bennett/Hammer DMIS/IDC make any explicit connection between language learning and intercultural learning. In contrast, the ACTFL Can-Do Statements for Intercultural Communication strive to articulate the interconnection between target language proficiency and intercultural competence. They build on Michael Byram’s model of intercultural communicative competence (ICC), which assumes language proficiency as a fundamental component, in an attempt to integrate ICC into the pre-existing NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements (proficiency benchmarks for language learners) as well as the “5 Cs” framework of the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages.2 Thus, the statements adopt the familiar ACTFL proficiency levels and modes of communication, effectively adding on two new ICC “modes,” termed investigate and interact, to the traditional ACTFL system of defining communication through the interpretive, interpersonal and presentational modes. A weakness of the Can-Do Statements is their lack of clarity about the concept of IC underlying the document as well as whether interactions or reflective work in 2 Although the statements adopt Byram’s term ICC, they do not address whether ACTFL accepts the definition and ethical commitment that Byram’s term entails within his own work, and therefore their own stance vis-a-vis ethical normativity is somewhat ambiguous.

146  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN

the native-language qualify as intercultural investigation. Indeed, the document cites an “inextricable link between language and culture” that would seem to contradict the culture-general and non-language-specific approach of many of the particular Can-Do statements. All of the models above share a similar approach of eschewing political language. Byram, a British interculturalist who comes from a background in language pedagogy, takes a different approach in his influential articulation of “intercultural communicative competence” (ICC) (Byram 1997). In his definition, Byram identifies five components of ICC: Attitudes, Knowledge, Skills of Interpreting and Relating, Skills of Discovery and Interaction, and Critical Cultural Awareness/ Political Education. One feature that distinguishes Byram’s model from the ACTFL statements is the inclusion of his fifth component, critical cultural awareness/political education. Other models and proponents of IC may imply (or take for granted) that IC is valuable for its effects on society, but Byram is the one who most unabashedly designs citizenship goals—relating most directly to his students’ participation in multiethnic nation-states and the multinational European Union—into his concept.3 That the articulations of IC should vary so greatly along the second axis, the degree of ethical commitment, is particularly interesting given that the critical theories discussed above that inform the philosophical milieu from which IC research has emerged take decidedly socially engaged stances. In many cases, these philosophical underpinnings may seem at odds with the value-neutral language used to articulate IC, leaving a fault line between the socially engaged spirit of intercultural competence work and the emphasis on politically non-threatening language. As we at Wofford engage with the extensive existing literature on Intercultural Competence, we do so with the conviction that intercultural learning has a natural home in pedagogy that intentionally nurtures pluralism, inclusivity, and civic engagement, all of which carry normative ethical implications beyond the consensus IC definition articulated by Deardorff. Nonetheless, we favor a flexible approach that allows for multiple modes of entry into IC pedagogy, including a variation in the

3 Byram’s work has served as the basis for a variety of initiatives by the European Commission and the Council of Europe in creating both assessment tools (INCA) and pedagogical materials (AIE) made freely available online.

8  A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

147

degree of social engagement the instructor prefers, whether due to personal conviction, institutional mission and setting, or to student body composition. Our model begins with an emphasis on culture-specific knowledge with some nods to culture-general relevance, and it gradually shifts as a student progresses through the major to a capstone level that envisions more emphasis on the culture-general, transferable elements of students’ experiences, using culture-specific examples to illustrate broader lessons. Our model presumes target language and IC to be separable but complementary. One may exercise IC equally when interacting in one’s native culture and country; by the same token, L2 interactions can lack intercultural competence. Moreover, given that most students will live in their home country and interact predominantly in their native language, it is precisely in this sphere of life that intercultural education has the most potential to affect real-world outcomes. We must educate students to be self-aware in their IC and skillful at transferring lessons learned in one cultural environment (e.g., abroad in Germany) to another cultural environment (e.g., working with clients in the US of a wide variety of ethnic and linguistic backgrounds). While language skills are not obligatory for IC, they serve as an invaluable companion and expand enormously the social fields in which one can exercise one’s IC. We agree with Byram that language education is of unique value within the field of IC because it is the missing link that enables one to build relationships with greater agency, not relying on the English language skills of one’s interlocutor to bridge the gap.

3  Format of Developmental Model We created a definition (Appendix B) inspired by the knowledge/ skills/attitudes articulation found in Deardorff and Byram, but with components that arose organically from discussions with department faculty and other campus constituencies. The resulting combination includes understanding of one’s own identity and cultural lens as well as a series of culture-general conceptual frameworks which we consider fundamental to orienting oneself in a new cultural environment (Cultural Value Orientations, Outgroup Heterogeneity, Positionality, and Intersectionality). Skills included range from the abilities to shift perspective and to notice and adapt, to the ability to build and maintain

148  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN

relationships across lines of cultural difference. Attitudes of curiosity, tolerance for ambiguity and discomfort, and flexibility complete the list.4 As we turned to the task of applying this definition longitudinally across our curriculum, we concluded that a developmental model would be helpful in order for us to be on the same page as we considered how to sequence our curricular interventions appropriately. The developmental model that we produced scaffolds students’ engagement with IC into three phases that begin with “Exposure and Experimentation,” followed by “Development” and leading to “Integration into Lifelong Learning.” The last phase of “Integration” extends post-graduation to articulate our goals for what students will continue to do as lifelong learners. We designed the model backwards from there to imagine what path we need to create for our students if we want them to continue to integrate IC into their daily lives after graduation. The structure of the model does not assume that a student enters our programs equally developed in all dimensions or that rates of growth will be consistent among all dimensions. A student might enter college with very low cultural self-awareness but relatively high skills of relationship building or a high attitude of curiosity, or vice versa. In addition, students enter with varying degrees of language proficiency, and the level of proficiency for first-year students also varies between languages. Structurally, some courses may focus more on perspective-taking and support students’ progression in that dimension while other courses may concentrate on relationship-building and self-awareness. A flexibly applied developmental model aims to provide a pathway: we know that if we want students to consistently operate in the “Development (pre-departure)” stage before they depart for study abroad, we need to intentionally map some of the earlier building blocks into our beginner and intermediate curriculum. Our model also reflects Marcia Baxter Magolda’s (2001) theory on college student development and self-authorship; as such, we recognize that development is very incremental and by no means always a clear progression and that our approach to intercultural learning includes learning about self as much as it focuses on learning about how to 4 By designating relationship building as a component of IC, we move beyond the “effective and appropriate” formulation of IC to argue that long-term relationships across lines of cultural difference are of value in and of themselves, thus including in our definition something of the citizenship emphasis typical of Byram’s ICC.

8  A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

149

relate to others. For Baxter Magolda, self-authorship is the stage in students’ development at which they understand that knowledge is complex and socially constructed, and they have developed an internal voice that allows them to form an identity that is not externally defined and to build interpersonal relationships. Once students have developed this internal foundation, they can articulate their own beliefs and values; however, according to Baxter Magolda’s longitudinal research study that traced college students into their thirties and beyond, most students do not reach this stage by the time they graduate. King and Baxter Magolda (2005) propose the concept of intercultural maturity which describes students who can construct knowledge by taking multiple cultural frameworks into consideration, can develop meaningful relationships with diverse others, appreciate difference, and can challenge their own beliefs. Taking into account these theories of self-authorship and intercultural maturity we recognize that some parts of our developmental model are aspirational. Yet, we can support students in their development of an internal voice and self-authorship by providing opportunities in our curriculum for critical incidents and reflections that prompt students to critically consider their belief systems and their own identity as well as their relationships with others.

4  Integrating IC into the Modern Languages Curriculum Implementing any model of IC into pre-existing curricula is where the rubber meets the road. Our department has approached this challenge by simultaneously enhancing and adding departmental offerings in English, but the following examples from the German Program and the Spanish Program highlight how we integrate our IC developmental model into language curricula. Our pedagogical approaches focus on critical reflection as a meaning-making process and on experiential learning to increase learners’ self-awareness of their own position, practices and beliefs within their culture, and to prepare them for engaging respectfully and meaningfully with people, cultures, and languages that present values and practices different from their own. Brookfield’s (2017) notion of critical incidents connects Baxter Magolda’s concept of self-authorship and Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory and provides the basis for various genres of reflection

150  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN

that we use in our curriculum. For Brookfield, critical incidents are moments in class that stand out to the learner because the learner felt particularly engaged or disengaged, or because an experience brought about cognitive dissonance or maybe surprise for the learner. Rather than using Brookfield’s questionnaire approach to recording critical incidents, we have opted to develop a system of critical reflection writings as our mode of assessing students’ intercultural learning. Students create critical reflections that may range anywhere from onehalf page to several pages, in the target language or in English, reporting their in-the-moment actions undertaken in an intercultural experience, and may make statements suggestive of values or attitudes. In that way, the reflections provide indirect, self-report evidence of external and internal IC outcomes and may also include direct evidence of both external and internal outcomes to the degree that the writing itself enacts the sense-making and emotion-management processes associated with perspective-taking, cultural self-awareness, and other components of IC. In our first-semester German curriculum, students engage in activities that focus on their identity. These activities help to develop students’ self-awareness, which serves as a co- or prerequisite for other dimensions in our model, such as perspective-taking or relationship building. Increasing cultural self-awareness and promoting identity development can be a helpful first step before exploring how people in other cultures have been conditioned in terms of their actions or values or how they make meaning of their cultural identities. Berardo and Deardorff (2012) as well as Stringer and Cassiday (2009) provide more ideas for integrating activities that address the development of cultural self-awareness. These activities are meant to introduce learners to cultural heterogeneity and preempt pervasive notions of a homogenous target culture or a homogenous primary culture, which often provide a foundation for resilient stereotypes that are then reinforced by traditional “us vs. them” textbook exercises. The first activity (“Meine Identität,” Appendix C) is a very basic activity for students at the novice-level, i.e., first semester, to begin thinking about different dimensions of their own and their classmates’ identities. The partner conversation, class discussion, and homework assignment that follow the activity, focus on visible and invisible dimensions of identity as well as on the weight individuals put on different aspects of their identity. Given our institution’s small size and student body composition, many students typically share common identity markers. Students soon

8  A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

151

begin to point to the diversity within the class and are quick to identify themselves as a heterogeneous group that just looks alike on the outside. However, when asking students how their differences manifest in different values or practices, students begin to see that not all differences necessarily mean that this group is truly heterogeneous in terms of its values and perspectives. Their engagement with questions around cultural self-awareness and identity becomes a bit more nuanced through this early activity, which occurs around week 8 or 9 of the semester. During the in-class activity students have to select six aspects of their identity that are most important to them (certain words are provided), and then work with a partner to explore which aspects are most important to their partner’s identity. Students are encouraged to look up unfamiliar words and find new words that would be relevant for them in this activity. The debriefing with their partner takes the form of asking questions using a formulaic phrase and responding with brief yes-or-no answers in a complete sentence that mirrors the question. During this activity students learn more about their partners and also often realize their own assumptions about someone else’s identity. The partner conversation is followed by a brief conversation in English with the entire class that also focuses on visible and invisible identities as well as on how these identities may contribute to a diversity of experiences, values, and perspectives. The class session is followed by a homework assignment that asks students to think of different ways to visually represent the different aspects of their identity than the one that was provided. At this point, students realize that the various aspects of their identities could be different in terms of the size they occupy in their visual representation, that different aspects of their identity may connect to each other in different ways, and that a circle divided into six equally sized pieces may not be an adequate way to represent how they are thinking of their identity. Students then write a brief reflection in English in which they can go into more depth in their explanation. During the next class session, students present their representation of their identity components to small groups.5 In this stage of “Exposure and Exploration,” students begin to see multifaceted identities within their native culture(s) (C1) and recognize that more visible cultural products and practices (3Fs of food, 5 The brief presentation differs in its form in different semesters depending on the ­ rogram’s staffing with a language assistant who works with students outside of class on p preparing brief presentations and on pronunciation and vocabulary training.

152  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN

folklore, festivals) are part of learning about other cultures but should not be generalized in such broad terms that diverse identities, perspectives, and knowledge disappear. Concrete examples of the level-appropriate integration of IC across a sequence of courses in the Spanish program include both our work with reflective writing and our community-based learning. A typical Spanish major could now encounter a variety of ethnography and autoethnography methods. In addition to scaffolding the students’ exposure to critical reflection methods, this progression within the Spanish program also intentionally sequences students’ experiences of interpersonal engagement with authentic cultural settings and individuals. In this way, students are placed into increasingly challenging interactions and are simultaneously trained in increasingly sophisticated methods for making sense of these interactions. In Intermediate Active Spanish, typically a first-semester course, students complete a form of thick description (“Word Painting,” Appendix D) writing assignment in which they visit a local Latino store as well as the corporate grocery store just across the street from it. Through this assignment, students learn that all intercultural engagement begins with observing, that we cannot make sense of something unless we are first noticing it and that the observations should be both external (describing what is encountered) and internal (describing our own affective states and responses that are filtering our perceptions). While conceptually this task is complex, students are typically enthused to see that they can complete it in the target language. Linguistically, they have to describe in the present, using vocabulary for the physical description and for emotions, and make comparisons between the two stores. This linguistic production is fully communicative, articulating their own perspective as they describe elements of the Latino store that catch their eye (knowledge of other culture), their own emotional responses, and comparisons of this knowledge to their own “normal” (cultural self-awareness), in relating such common examples as the packaging and display of meat. In Advanced Spanish with Community-Based Learning, the gateway course for the Spanish major, students complete a semester-long community engagement project in a local elementary school, placing them in sustained interpersonal contact but with a population that, by virtue of their younger age, is likely to seem unthreatening to the student. In reflecting on their community experiences, students at this level begin by continuing to develop skill in the Word Painting method mentioned

8  A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

153

above. They then add to the descriptive work the stages of PerspectiveTaking (surfacing their own assumptions and proposing alternative explanations).6 The third and final scripted prompt adds to the previous steps a two-part process of connecting new knowledge to prior frameworks and revising that mental model of the world accordingly. Major-level culture courses (Cultures of Spain and The Hispanic World: Spanish America) regularly include virtual collaboration with peer-aged individuals from Spanish-Speaking countries on for-pay platforms such as TalkAbroad or through direct language-exchange pairings arranged by the professor. Collaborating with peers and doing so in the target language raises the stakes and the challenge for the students, but the stress-level is attenuated by the mediating factor of the technology (these are not in-person interactions). By this point, students have progressed from a purely observational interaction, through English language interaction with a non-peer population, up to target-language, online interaction with peers. Assignments for these conversations ask students to achieve certain content-related, information-gathering goals, learning for example about attitudes toward colonial history among the social circle of a Mexican conversation partner. The critical reflections that students produce guide them to articulate the arc of their own emotional response during the conversation (instances of anxiety, hesitancy, comfort, etc.), the behavioral strategies utilized (i.e., how the student kept the conversation flowing), and the information gained (demonstrating that the student achieved his or her goals in the conversation). At this point in their careers, students have honed attitudes and skills that will help them make the leap to face-to-face interactions with locals when studying abroad. At the senior level, post-study abroad, courses such as Creative and Practical Writing in Spanish guide students through the creation of travel essays and short stories, as they exercise cultural and personal self-awareness in reflecting on their intercultural experiences and make

6 Other interculturalists may recognize in this approach the influence of the DIE model formulated by Milton and Janet Bennett (Paige et al. 2012, pp. 115–17), as well as the Council of Europe’s Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters (2014). Both of those methods, in turn, draw much from Phenomenology as it has influenced the social sciences over the twentieth century, leading to the standard approach of Describe-Interpret-Analyze in the human sciences (“Phenomenology”).

154  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN

the empathic leap to writing a story from the point of view of ­someone they encountered while abroad. In this way, their career of reflective writing ends with relatively deep dives into Cultural Self-Awareness and Perspective Taking. This senior seminar also creates a space for student agency within the field of critical reflection. While we continue to conduct classroom activities and daily writing prompts that guide students into the intercultural reflection methods practiced in earlier levels, their longer assignments at this stage are intentionally free-form, allowing students to apply the various tools for intercultural reflection in a way that makes most sense to them for processing the given experience.

5  Conclusion Integration of IC has opened our curricula to conversations about different identities, power dynamics, and community and relationship building. These conversations allow students to look inward, explore their positionality and the environments in which they live, from the classroom to the national level and internationally. The process of decolonizing the curriculum also includes a paradigm shift for learners who can no longer just look at the other country/identity/language, but have to think about their own complex context and how it shapes their values, experiences, and expectations. This approach challenges all of us to carefully consider how we construct knowledge about our own and other cultures. The developmental model provides a map that articulates in a living document where we stand and what is important to us; it is a mission statement in action to present to students that intercultural learning is a complex and ongoing process. We hope that, eventually, our implementation of this model will motivate at least some students to seek out intercultural challenges, across our majors, the college, and beyond. We remain in the early stages of a long process that we have found to be both professionally and personally energizing. It is a process that has connected us to other disciplines and opened up opportunities for language programs to renew our commitment to a leading role in ongoing conversations about the institutional mission and the importance and shape of the desired intercultural learning outcomes for our graduates.

8  A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

155

References Au, Wayne. 2011. Critical Curriculum Studies: Education, Consciousness, and the Politics of Knowing. Critical Social Thought. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Bathurst, Laura A. 2015. “Culture Specific/Culture General.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence, edited by Janet M. Bennett, 211–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baxter Magolda, Marcia B. 2001. Making Their Own Way: Narratives for Transforming Higher Education to Promote Self-Development. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bennett, Milton. 1993. “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Education for the Intercultural Experience, edited by R. Michael Paige, 21–71. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Berardo, Kate, and Darla K. Deardorff. 2012. Building Cultural Competence: Innovative Activities and Models. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Brookfield, Stephen. 2017. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Byram, Michael. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039. Deardorff, D.K. 2011. “Assessing Intercultural Competence.” New Directions for Institutional Research 149 (Spring): 65–79. ———. 2006. “Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization.” Journal of Studies in International Education 10 (3): 241–66. Freire, Pablo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Herder and Herder. Hammer, M.R. 2011 “Additional Cross-Cultural Validity Testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (4, July): 474–87. Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 13 (3): 575–99. Harding, Sandra. 1992. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is ‘Strong Objectivity?’” The Centennial Review 36 (3): 437–70. Hartsock, Nancy C.M. 1998. The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays. Oxford: Westview. King, Patricia M., and Marcia B. Baxter Magolda. 2005. “A Developmental Model of Intercultural Maturity.” Journal of College Student Development 46 (6): 571–92. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0060.

156  B. BRUNOW AND B. NEWMAN Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lovik, Thomas A., J. Douglas Guy, and Monika Chavez. 2014. Vorsprung: A Communicative Introduction to German Language and Culture. Boston: Heinle. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. 2015. WorldReadiness Standards for Learning Languages, 4th ed. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. NCSSFL-ACTFL. 2017. Can-Do Statements. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. h t t p s : / / w w w. a c t f l . o r g / p u b l i c a t i o n s / g u i d e l i n e s - a n d - m a n u a l s / ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements. Paige, R. Michael, et al. 2012. Maximizing Study Abroad: A Student’s Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Stoetzler, Marcel, and Nira Yuval-Davis. 2002. “Standpoint Theory, Situated Knowledge and the Situated Imagination.” Feminist Theory 3 (3): 315–33. Stringer, D.M., and P.A. Cassiday. 2009. 52 Activities for Improving CrossCultural Communication. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Wofford College. 1998. “Wofford College Mission.” Spartanburg, SC: Wofford College. www.wofford.edu/about/mission/.

CHAPTER 9

Study Abroad Otherwise Janice McGregor

Study abroad (SA) is a fixture of German language education in the United States. Reciprocal agreements between U.S. and German universities began to emerge around sixty years ago,1 and German language educators have made SA a central feature of curricular planning ever since. Because SA is commonly understood to be a context that furnishes opportunities for meaningful, “authentic” German language use as well as the acquisition of “near-native” German language proficiency, educators, advisors, parents, and friends have counseled, and in some cases implored, generations of German students to go abroad. Undeniably, these normative ways of talking about language learning and SA have guided the design and development of SA programs across foreign language educational contexts for a number of years. Their ubiquity means that many see them as innocent and unremarkable—as a

1 As an example, Kansas State University and Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen signed reciprocal agreements in 1960.

J. McGregor (*)  Department of German Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_9

157

158  J. McGREGOR

German professor, I, too, have encouraged my students and advisees to go abroad, in large part due to my own fond recollections of language and intercultural learning experiences as a SA student in the Germanspeaking world. Yet the ways in which SA is commonly framed in German language education (i.e., as the most “authentic” context to acquire “native-like” German) should cause agitation for two reasons. First, talking about SA as a way to gain access to “authentic” German produces a problematic ideological position that values primarily native-speaking, “standard” language practices. As Flores and Rosa (2015a) have deftly pointed out, these constructions are “anchored in raciolinguistic ideologies that conflate certain racialized bodies with linguistic deficiency unrelated to any objective linguistic practices” (p. 150). Second, German language educators’ orientations to language learning in SA are steeped in the current (post-1990s) neoliberal paradigm in which we live and work, given processes of globalization that have by now taken center stage (Kramsch 2019; Reagan and Osborn 2019). Here, I do not engage in a debate of whether or not SA is an inherently good or bad context for language learning. Instead, I aim to show that talk about language learning in SA is steeped in intertwined discursive structures that aid in the recultivation of structural monolingualism, something that shapes the lived experiences of German language educators and learners in SA today. For this reason, I engage in an investigation of SA participants’ talk about SA with the overall goal of imagining SA otherwise. In what follows, I review how language education, and SA in particular, is informed by processes of globalization, post-monolingual discourses, and raciolinguistic perspectives.

1  SA, Globalization, and the Neoliberal Condition Today, processes of globalization, or the unmatched movement of commodities, capital, information, ideas, and people globally (Wolcott 2016) often seem like unmarked, unexceptional activities. However, they have strongly shaped experiences in foreign language education and SA. This is in part because language use in and around the university has aided in the renarration of the university-as-enterprise (Holborow 2015, pp. 98–99). The neoliberal university did not emerge overnight; neoliberal transformations are steeped in discursive structures that aim to give one a sense that the “free” market principles central to today’s political

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

159

economy (e.g., austerity, deregulation) are a historically and long-lasting part of the university (Holborow 2013). The same ideological-informed structures shape calls for academic units to provide ongoing evidence of sustained economic development—or, at minimum, the demonstration of growth potential, which means that language educators now contend with decision-making processes that favor economic policies that at times also undermine their ability to focus on the academic matter of educating language learners. Today, many institutions of higher education in the United States have implemented “responsibility-centered management” (RCM) budgetary models that create an atmosphere of rivalry—academic units are frequently compelled to compete for enrollments in order to contain their own costs (Wagner et al. 2017). This work is consequential for how German language educators design and market basic language sequences, minor and major programs, and, here, I add, SA. Given these many institutional shifts, SA programs—once framed primarily as an opportunity that benefits the student—take on new meaning. For example, short-term summer SA programs led by faculty members are now a popular way to pursue student recruitment and retention and generate additional revenue for the unit. And the numbers do not lie—65% of U.S. American students who SA now participate in programs of eight weeks or less (Institute of International Education 2018). Finally, neoliberal practices at U.S. institutions shape German language educators’ choices regarding program design and direction. First, designing and directing a SA program gives language educators an opportunity to build relationships with their students outside of the traditional classroom. This contact is crucial for engaging students in the major program so that they continue enrolling in German. Second, German language educators increasingly work in single-line language programs (i.e., they single-handedly run their German programs) as nine-month tenure-track employees or, in particularly troubling situations, as contingent faculty members who run programs with no promise of procuring contracts longer than one year.2 German language educators in these positions may choose to design and lead a

2 I

am indebted to Kris Aric Knisely for his insights on these issues.

160  J. McGREGOR

summer SA not only because they feel it would benefit their students and their programs, but also because it ensures them a summer salary. Third, German language educators in single-line programs may have no choice but to promote SA as the main way for students to meet program requirements and ultimately complete the German major. In such contexts, SA essentially becomes a mechanism for guaranteeing that students can complete a German minor or major without necessitating that the home institution hire another instructor. Since single-line faculty members are typically unable to teach all of the courses needed for students to complete the German major, credits collected and transferred from SA are in some cases the only way that a German degree program can survive.

2  SA, Language Learning, and the Post-monolingual Condition In addition to the local effects of budgetary and labor decisions, German language educators also encourage language learners to go abroad because it is hoped—and sometimes expected—that the student’s experience will yield new and different opportunities for meaningful and contextualized language use. Yet despite the fact that students are multilinguals themselves, SA has long been constructed in ways that rely primarily on monolingual discursive frames. In her book Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition, Yasemin Yildiz (2012) proposes that a “field of tension” emerges precisely because “the monolingual paradigm continues to assert itself” even as “multilingual practices persist or reemerge” (p. 5). For Yildiz, these ongoing processes of monolingualization are the direct result of the pressures of the monolingual paradigm. German SA is saturated in ideologies that reproduce these processes. Programs with language pledges are an excellent example of this “field of tension,” or two-faced “Janusian” thinking (Dervin 2010), between how people talk about language use and the actual language use itself. A pledge requires a student’s firm commitment to language learning via a promise that they will only use the L2 abroad. Yet language learners are multilinguals who are pre-disposed to utilize their entire linguistic repertoire to make meaning. In other words, language learners, regardless of proficiency, are never “parallel” monolinguals

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

161

(Heller 1999, p. 271), or individuals who “disconnect” pieces of their linguistic repertoire while learning and using another language. In fact, the research supports this—programs with prescriptive language policies have been shown to be unsuccessful at eradicating multilingual behavior (Swain and Lapkin 1998; Tarone and Swain 1995). Current findings from studies investigating translanguaging, or the act of accessing various linguistic resources or modes of what is typically considered autonomous language systems in order to communicate meaning (García 2009), show that the use of multiple language resources is actually the norm. Students utilize the L1 in L2 classroom contexts, for example, even when doing so is forbidden (Anton and DiCamilla 1999; Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain 2005). Although this work has brought greater awareness to these issues in foreign language education, twenty-first-­ century German language educators and learners often at best manage multilingualism and multilingual practices as they emerge, even in SA.

3  SA, Language Learning, and the Raciolinguistic Condition The statistics on the representation of minoritized populations in SA remain concerning: more than 70% of U.S. American students who went abroad in 2017 were non-Hispanic whites (Institute of International Education 2018) despite the fact that they make up just 62% of the U.S. population. Few studies in SA have focused explicitly on minoritized U.S. language learners’ experiences in SA with two landmark exceptions. Uju Anya (2017) closely followed four African American language learners’ experiences studying abroad in Brazil in a majority Afro-Brazilian city. Her findings show that regardless of the local context, race is a centrally important issue in her students’ lives as they navigate the experience of feeling less racially marked while also learning to speak their material and symbolic selves through Portuguese. In another study, Talburt and Stewart (1999) followed Misheila, an African American Spanish language learner in Spain, who unlike other students in her cohort, had to navigate issues related to her racialized hypervisibility. The other students expressed their desires to “pass” as Spanish, or hide their cultural markedness; Misheila did not have that option. The authors examined Misheila’s negative racialized experiences in Spain, her struggle to navigate being hypervisible, and how these influenced her

162  J. McGREGOR

opportunities with and for cultural learning, arguing that language curricula should deal with race and gender questions through experiential inquiry and historical and contemporary study to “benefit all students— not only those who are ostensibly affected by their marked positioning” (Talburt and Stewart 1999, p. 172). Research shows that racialized speaking subjects are accustomed to being conflated with difference, and in some cases, with linguistic deficiency (Flores and Rosa 2015a). This is because dominant discourses in the United States are saturated in raciolinguistic ideological structures that uphold and idealize the linguistic practices of whiteness via the ­ideological position of the white speaking and listening subject. The white and speaking and listening subject is said to hear and process “the linguistic practices of minoritized populations as deviant based on their racial positioning in society as opposed to any objective characteristics of their language use” (Flores and Rosa 2015a, p. 151). In other words, racialized language practices are rendered illegitimate “in ways that are unrelated to empirical linguistic forms” (Flores and Rosa 2015b). For example, a white speaking and listening subject in the German language classroom (at home or abroad) may hear deficiency in the voices of language learners of color even as those learners engage in language practices that would be deemed appropriate if produced by a white, monolingual English, German language learner. In this way, the white German-speaking subject profits from taking part in normative language practices and can even appropriate the language practices of racialized and multilingual bodies to no ill effect. Meanwhile, racialized speaking subjects face a “catch-22” (Flores and Rosa 2015b)—they are often heard as deficient, regardless of how they engage in “white, native speaking” linguistic practices. This is because whiteness is viewed as unremarkable, and, thus, carries privilege—it grants “the sense of absolute belonging and importance” (Hurtado and Stewart 1997, p. 302; Weber 2016). In German language educational contexts, minoritized speakers of German-born in the German-speaking world continue to be underrepresented visually and linguistically in German language materials and curricula. In other words, theirs are not the idealized faces (or voices) of “German” language and cultural practices. Between “responsibilitycentered” myths about language learning as the individual collection of multiple monolingualisms, and the fact that minoritized speaking

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

163

subjects are often heard as deficient regardless of objective linguistic practices, it is kein Wunder that so few Students of Color pursue German language learning, or SA in the German-speaking world.

4  The Current Study In this study, I argue that SA participants use interlocking neoliberal, nativist, and raciolinguistic ideologies when talking about language learning abroad. I present findings along two themes: talk about language use in SA and talk about being addressed in English or German in SA. The results show that the entwined ideological structures aid speakers in “reelecting monolingualism” (Gramling 2019) because they position language learners against a very marketable norm, i.e., the white, monolingual, native speaker. The data for this chapter comes from two broader studies that I conducted in two SA contexts in Germany. The first study took place in the context of a short-term SA program where I collected an interview interaction with a language learner as well as naturalistic interactions between language learners abroad, many of whom were also my students. The second study took place in the context of a year-long SA program, where I collected recordings of naturalistic interactions between language learners and recording of oral reflections by language learners. These learners were not my students. I analyzed the focal data here using discourse analysis to scrutinize what SA participants actually accomplish with their utterances, whether jointly in an interaction (e.g., in an interview or in an informal conversational context) or in an oral reflection meant for me. Taken together, the empirical analysis shows that SA participants’ talk about language learning in SA continually reproduce the “ongoing dominance of the monolingual” (Yildiz 2012, p. 4).

5  Entwined Ideologies Today, we know that talk about language learning, especially in SA, is informed by discourses of native-speakerism and native-speakership. 25 years ago, Kramsch (1993, 1997) argued that the ideological position of the idealized, monolingual native speaker is the imagined norm, in spite of the fact

164  J. McGREGOR

that even early multilinguals negotiate their multiple language resources when speaking with others in interaction (García 2009; Wei 2016). Today, in concert with these ideologies of native-speakership, “responsibility-­ centered” discourses and raciolinguistic ideologies also play a role in shaping talk about German language use in SA and being addressed in English vs. German in SA. In what follows, I report on findings along with these two themes. 5.1   Talk About Language Use in SA Years ago, as a German language learner beginning a summer internship abroad, my German employer told me that my goal would be to avoid using English on the job. I got the sense that if I did, she would think that I was not serious about learning German—and I did not want to be viewed as a “lazy” or “bad” language learner. Similarly, language educators and learners frame SA as a linguistic opportunity that should not be squandered, suggesting that there are German language learners who “waste” their SA experience via the “wrong” actions (i.e., “inaction”). We cannot understand this kind of talk without considering neoliberal discourses about production—“good” German language learners in SA take responsibility for their own actions; they are “responsibility-centered.” In other words, while navigating a marked linguistic and cultural experience, educators and learners talk about language learning abroad in ways that put the entirety of the onus on the student to find ways to use and improve their German. Students re-produce these ideological structures as seen in Excerpt 1. Matt and Tucker are white, U.S.-American German language learners participating in short-term SA. Here, they participate in translanguaging practices (see bold-face examples in Excerpt 1) to speak primarily in German about how they should speak more German in Germany.

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

165

Excerpt 1  Peer interaction about using German during short-term SA ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ ϴ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϯ ϭϰ ϭϱ ϭϲ ϭϳ ϭϴ ϭϵ ϮϬ Ϯϭ ϮϮ Ϯϯ Ϯϰ Ϯϱ Ϯϲ Ϯϳ Ϯϴ Ϯϵ ϯϬ ϯϭ ϯϮ ϯϯ ϯϰ ϯϱ ϯϲ ϯϳ ϯϴ ϯϵ ϰϬ ϰϭ ϰϮ ϰϯ ϰϰ ϰϱ ϰϲ ϰϳ ϰϴ ϰϵ ϱϬ ϱϭ ϱϮ ϱϯ ϱϰ ϱϱ ϱϲ

78& VSUHFKHQVLHYLHOHGHXWVFKDQ  GLHVHQZRKQXQJ 0$7 XP ZHQQLFKXK ZHQQVHKH LFKGLH PLWEHZRKQHU MD LFKVSUHFKHGHXWVFKPLWLKQDEHU  LFKVHKHVLHQLFKWVRRIW 78& >[[[[MD 0$7 >DEHURGHUMXVWLQ GHXWVFKODQG MDLFKVSUHFKHYLHOHGHXWVFK ODXJKLQJ! 78& GDVLVWJXWMDZLUPVVHQYLHOH GHXWVFKVSUHFKHQ 0$7 MDDEHUQLFKWVRYLHOPLWGLH DQGHUHDPHULNDQHU 78& MD>MD 0$7 >ZLUVSUHFKHQ]XYLHO HQJOLVFK 78& LQXQVHUHJUXSSH 0$7 >MD 78& >VSUHFKHQZLU DPPHLVWHQV HQJOLVFK 0$7 MDXQGGDVLVWHLQELVVFKHQ SUREOHPDWLVFKIUGLH]ZHLWH NXUVDKLFKKRIIH XKZLU  XP ZLUXPPHKUGHXWVFK  VSUHFKHQ ZUGHQ ODXJKLQJ! 78& DKMDGXKDVWXP DVLDWLVFKH OHXWHQ 0$7 >MD 78& >MD 0$7 MDXK 78& VLHNRPPWDXV-DSDQ 0$7 MDSDQLVFKHLQELVVFKHQNRUHLVFK LFKGHQNHMD>VR 78&   >GDVLVWJXW 0$7 MD >VR 78& >VLHNDQQGLHVHGHXWVFKH 0$7 PHKUGHXWVFKLQNXUVDEHUPLW GLHDQGHUHDPHULNDQHULQ>PHLQH JUXSSH  78& >RNMD 0$7 LFKKRIIHIU PR PHKU GHXWVFK 78& MDLFKPDJHQJOLVFKDEHU 0$7 MD 78& XK LFKNHQQH ZLUVROOHQ PHKUGHXWVFKVSUHFKHQODXJKLQJ! 0$7 MD,PHDQ  ZLU ZLUVLQG LQGHXWVFKODQG 78& >MD 0$7 >IUGHXWVFKVSUHFKHQ>VRMD 78& >H[DFWO\ MD JHQDXMD >XK 0$7    >MD ]X YLHOHQJOLVFK

78& GR\RXVSHDNDORWRI*HUPDQLQ WKLVDSDUWPHQW 0$7 XKZKHQ,XKZKHQ,VHHWKH RWKHUURRPPDWHV\HDK,VSHDN *HUPDQZLWKWKHPEXW,GRQ¶W VHHWKHPYHU\RIWHQ 78& >LQDXGLEOH!\HDK 0$7 >EXWRUMXVWLQ *HUPDQ\\HDK, VSHDNDORWRI*HUPDQODXJKLQJ! 78& WKDW¶VJRRG\HDKZHKDYHWR VSHDNDORWRI*HUPDQ 0$7 \HDKEXWQRWVRPXFKZLWKRWKHU $PHULFDQV 78& \HDK>\HDK 0$7 >ZHVSHDNWRRPXFK (QJOLVK 78& LQRXUJURXS 0$7 \HDK 78& ZHVSHDNPRVWO\(QJOLVK 0$7 \HDKDQGWKDW¶VDELWRID SUREOHPIRUWKHVHFRQGFRXUVHDK ,KRSHXKZLUXK«ZHXKZRXOG VSHDNPRUH*HUPDQODXJKLQJ! 78& DK\HDK\RXKDYHXK$VLDQV 0$7 78& 0$7 78& 0$7 78& 0$7 78& 0$7 78& 0$7

>\HDK >\HDK \HDKXK WKH\FRPHIURP-DSDQ -DSDQHVHDOLWWOH.RUHDQ,WKLQN \HDK>VR  >WKDW¶VJRRG \HDK>VR >WKH\FDQ VSHDN*HUPDQ PRUH*HUPDQLQWKHFRXUVHEXW ZLWKRWKHU$PHULFDQVLQ >P\JURXS >RN\HDK ,KRSHIRUPRPRUH*HUPDQ

78& \HDK,OLNH(QJOLVKEXW 0$7 \HDK 78& XK,NQRZZHVKRXOGVSHDNPRUH *HUPDQODXJKLQJ! 0$7 \HDK,PHDQ ZH ZHDUHLQ *HUPDQ\ 78& \HDK 0$7 WRVSHDN*HUPDQ>VR\HDK 78&   >H[DFWO\ \HDK H[DFWO\\HDK>XK 0$7   >\HDKWRRPXFK (QJOLVK

In line 9, Matt states that he speaks a lot of German, noting, “ja ich spreche viele Deutsch”. Tucker follows up by commenting that “wir müssen viele Deutsch sprechen” (11–12), which Matt endorses, also adding “nicht so viel mit (…) andere Amerikaner” (13–14).

166  J. McGREGOR

Later, in lines 43 and 55–56, Matt communicates his overall wish is for “mehr Deutsch” and that there’s “zu viel Englisch.” Tucker clearly hedges here with “ich mag Englisch aber” (45). First, Matt and Tucker both idealize native speaker interlocutors when they agree that they should not pursue German language use with other U.S. Americans. Yet ironically, they are, in fact, two U.S. Americans participating in a German language conversation with one another. In lines 28–39, they identify other German learning peers (students from Japan, Korea) as possible resources for German language use not just because these students are also taking German courses, but perhaps because of raciolinguistic ideologies—assuming, perhaps, that students from Japan and Korea do not speak English very well, if at all. In these ways, Matt and Tucker frame language as an entity (Flores 2019) and resource that a person can access (either too often or not enough) and speak more (or less) of. What almost goes unrecognized here is the way in which the languages themselves are imbued with agency, or with potential and creative opportunities (Phipps 2003)—that is, until Tucker complicates this responsibility-centered framing of language learning by articulating an affective connection to English “ich mag Englisch aber,” which Matt cooperates with in line 46. However, he does not endorse Tucker’s plea, and together, they agree that they should speak more German since they are in Germany. White language learners abroad like Matt and Tucker often talk about using German in Germany in ways that rely on the “omnipresent [white monolingual German] classroom”, in which German language use only has long been the norm (Wilkinson 2002, words added). The omnipresent classroom has had a significant influence on (white) educators’ and students’ beliefs about language learning and language use, and may emerge here as a function of the research and recording process itself since many participants often feel compelled to do “being good language learner” for the researcher, especially when she is also their professor. Minoritized language learners in the same SA program, however, may not view the language classroom in the same way. Research on non-white U.S. American German language learners abroad, although shamefully negligible, reveal very different experiences in SA (see McGregor and Fernández 2019). For example, during an interview that I conducted in a short-term SA program, participant Mayden, a queer, trans, Black, German language learner (pronoun: they), talked about their own language use abroad by noting that they did not know how to use German to defend themselves when responding to discrimination.

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

167

Excerpt 2  Interview excerpt from Mayden during short-term SA 0$ZHMXVWKDYH   >PP PDWHULDOWKDWZHJRRYHUEXW,KDYHQ¶WOLNH UHDOO\KDGD FRQYHUVDWLRQZLWKDQ\RIP\WHDFKHUVDERXWZKDWKDVEHHQ KDSSHQLQJRXWVLGHRIFODVVRU

Excerpt 2 shows that the need to respond to threats was a central concern for Mayden during SA, although this is rarely considered or taught in the white, monolingual German classroom. As the interviewer, I, a white, cisgender, nonnative speaking German professor in the U.S, communicate this normative, privileged understanding of what a language classroom can or should be (i.e., a space where you can locate the vocabulary you need) and this issue as one that Mayden alone must solve in order to keep using German (12–13). While this corresponds to the ways in which Matt and Tucker position themselves, the same does not hold true for Mayden, who has no reason to understand the classroom as a resource here. Positioning the language classroom as a space in which they simply review pre-determined language material with no room for non-structural concerns, Mayden suggests that what is going on in their life outside of the classroom would never overlap with what is valued in class. In other words, it is not a lack of intentionality alone that can account for Mayden’s decision not to pursue German language use in the ways that others might have done. Rather, their experiences with discrimination in this new, unfamiliar space shape how they negotiate the kinds of wellness and safety concerns that people like Matt and Tucker do not face. Whether or not Mayden is a “good” language learner in SA is of little concern when compared to other immediate safety concerns. Finally, an example in which entwined neoliberal, nativist, and raciolinguistic discourses shape discussions of language choice comes from year-long participant Brad, who identifies as “mostly Caucasian, and

168  J. McGREGOR

one-eighth Cherokee.” Although Brad noticed at times that Germans “couldn’t place me,” he constantly communicated to me that he viewed himself as mostly white. While speaking English with someone at the mixed martial arts gym he joined in SA, Brad overheard another gym member question his language choices, saying, in German, “[Brad] should be speaking German.” Brad shared that his trainer inserted himself into the conversation and defended Brad by redesigning him as a valuable resource and opportunity for gym members to improve their terrible English. In his reflection, Brad aligned with the gym member’s assertion that he should speak only German in the gym, thereby upholding structural monolingualism. For that reason, he was also amazed at his trainer’s defense of his use of English, noting that the trainer was far more open with language use than many others. However, Brad was never able to examine the ideological structures underpinning the way in which the trainer recirculates both native speaker and responsibility-centered discourses to come to his defense. 5.2   Talk About Being Addressed in English vs. German A second issue that preoccupies SA participants is the fact that in the ­current post-1990s context of globalization, regardless of whether or not language learners decide to use German, they are likely to be addressed in English. Some educators respond to this fear by recommending that students avoid participating in English or multilingual language use and developing close connections with fellow first language (L1) English speakers. For many speakers, however, English becomes an important shared resource that allows for the maintenance of communication in multilingual and/or multicultural contexts. Yet when U.S. American German language learners talk about being addressed partially or entirely in English during SA, they often frame as an annoyance or problem that only the persistent (and ultimately successful) students can overcome. Scholars have even reported on the negative (Willis Allen 2010) and positive affective reactions (McGregor 2016) of U.S. American language learners who, while using their second language (L2) abroad, are met with English or German responses. The data analysis here shows SA participants may see the interlocutor’s switch to English as a product of their own successful or failed attempts to display of “enoughness,” or the representative features that would allow them to be “ratified as an authentic member of an identity

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

169

category” (Blommaert and Varis 2011, p. 4). SA participants may also characterize moments when they are addressed by local German speakers in ways that connect to their racialized positioning as German language learners.

6  Displays of “Enoughness” An example of success or failure to display “enoughness” can be seen (and questioned) in the year-long study I conducted. David, a white, U.S.-American student abroad, informed me early on in the program that his professors and family members told him not to speak any English or “hang out with the English-speaking people” in SA. In Germany, he routinely talked about his interactions in ways that positioned German native speakers as the most ideal interlocutors. Additionally, David prided himself on his ongoing attempts to speak German with elderly German women because he had been told that they would be less likely to address him in English. In one reflection, David shared his thoughts about a specific interaction with an elderly woman in the city, saying, “I didn’t perceive that she was talking down to me [in German]. I felt that I was interacting with a native, on a native level.” This reflection communicates David’s belief that one simply has to display enough of the features necessary to be viewed as an authentic member of the German-speaking community (Blommaert and Varis 2011) in order to be addressed in German. David also reflected on his concerns about his German pronunciation in another interaction with an elderly woman at a bus stop, as seen in Excerpt 3. Excerpt 3  Oral reflection from participant David during year-long SA Zuerst meinte sie, dass ich Holländer bin. Doch ich musste ihr erklären, dass ich aus den USA komme. Ich war froh, dass sie meinen Akzent nicht automatisch amerikanisch erkennbar fand. Das war (…) und das bleibt auch ein großes Problem für mich (…) dass ich nicht will, dass allen sofort erkennbar ist, dass ich aus den USA komme, einfach weil ich einen Akzent habe. First, she thought I was Dutch. Then I had to explain to her that I’m from the USA. I was happy that she didn’t automatically recognize my accent as American. That was (…) and that remains a big problem for me too (…) that I don’t want that it to be immediately apparent to everyone that I’m from the USA just because I have an accent.

170  J. McGREGOR

Notably, David frames the encounter in Excerpt 3 as successful because he could use German and at the same time mask certain aspects of his multilingual identity. In other words, even though David actively participates in multilingual practices as a multilingual himself, he eschews positioning himself as a multilingual subject in favor of speaking of his abilities in terms of additive bilingualism (Heller 1999). Like Matt and Tucker in Excerpt 1, David’s way of talking about language learning abroad reflects both the pervasiveness of whiteness and English language use in today’s globalized world. David felt that these were easily accessible German language interactions and wondered why others did not pursue these kinds of interactions. At the time, I was impressed and ratified his approach. Now, I am much more aware of the privileged position that David held during SA. Had participant Mayden, who talked about facing discrimination during SA due to their queer, trans, Blackness, approached elderly German women with the goal of pleasant German language exchange, the outcomes would likely be quite different. In any case, David made choices that “re-elected” (Gramling 2019) white, native-speaking monolingualism by assigning significance to German as an entity that he (and indeed anyone) can take responsibility for learning and using, and English as an entity that he (and indeed anyone) can choose to completely avoid.

7  Effects of Racialization Both Brad and Mayden talk about being addressed by local German speakers in ways that reveal they were seen and heard as racialized bodies. For example, year-long SA participant Brad, who repeatedly claimed to be “not even much like Cherokee,” became aware that he was not always perceived as a U.S. American or native English speaker, unlike his fellow (white) U.S. American friends. For example, Brad reflected on an experience he had in the park when two teenagers approached him and asked him in German where he was from. Excerpt 4  Oral reflection from participant Brad during year-long SA I was like “ich komme aus den USA” and he was like oh you are from America (…) they kept looking at me and then the one guy comes over again (…) and he’s like, excuse me, do you speak Spanish or Portuguese? I was like no, and he’s like oh (…) I was like (…) I’m actually part Native

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

171

American and then he like looks over at his like friend and yells something in German real quick and the kid was just like yeah I knew it! It was just like (…) hilarious for me (…) I’m not even much like Cherokee it just like came out in my sister and I. So like the Germans I guess have fun with it (…) like oh, real real Indian! I’m like, yeah sure  (…)

Here, Brad recognized that he is being positioned racially, as his response “I’m actually part Native American” to the language question “do you speak Spanish or Portuguese” revealed. Initially amused at these kinds of encounters, Brad later felt frustrated with locals’ desire and inability to place him, noting that partway throughout the year, this issue seemed to shift his opportunities for German language use since once people found out he was U.S. American, they simply chose to speak English with him (McGregor 2016, p. 21). Excerpt 5  Oral reflection from participant Brad during year-long SA At training there’s a new woman. I was talking to her for a bit and she like thought I was Spanish or some shit. So she started talking to me in German! I was like talking to her a bit and then she said where you from I was like I’m from the U.S. And ever since then she like won’t talk to me in German (…) it’s really weird. Even when I talk in German they respond in English and then I just give up after a time (…) I just find it really annoying.

First, his comment proposes that it may be white U.S. Americans who are more likely to be addressed in English, which suggests that German speakers’ decisions in these contexts are motivated by raciolinguistic ideologies. Second, his initial intrigue at how he’s being positioned racially turns into irritation, since identifying himself as U.S. American typically leads to Germans addressing him switching to English (and, thus, see and hear him more as “white”). This is a privilege that Brad becomes adept at manipulating—as the year wore on, I witnessed him harness his racialized positioning to pursue use of his entire linguistic repertoire (including German) with local speakers by both masking his first language and country of origin and then playfully calling people out for their assumptions about his nationality and the language resources that

172  J. McGREGOR

he did or did not have at his disposal. In this way, he solidified his own opportunities for participating in all kinds of new multilingual practice. Mayden had no way to play with these racialized boundaries. In their short-term SA, Mayden frames their opportunities for German language use as negative, insinuating that it is due to being positioned as a non-normative, racialized body. Excerpt 6  Interview with participant Mayden during short-term SA  0$ ZKLOHKHUHDORWRISHRSOH,¶YHKDGLQWHUDFWLRQVZLWK XKVHHP  WRJHW PRUHDQJU\ -0 PPKP 0$ LI,LIWKH\GRQ¶WXQGHUVWDQGPH>RU -0 >PPKP 0$ DUHQ¶WZLOOLQJWROLVWHQWRPHRUGRQ¶WZDQWWRGHDOZLWKPHLI, FDQRQO\VSHDN(QJOLVK >RU  -0 >PPKP 0$ FDQ¶WVSHDNJRRGHQRXJK *HUPDQ -0 PPKP 0$ XKP VRWKDW¶VSUHWW\WLULQJ

In lines 4 and 6–7, Mayden positions local interlocutors as either unable or unwilling to understand them, regardless of language, showing that they are not concerned about whether or not they are addressed in German or English (unlike Brad). They simply want to be able to communicate with people without feeling unsafe and exhausted. Overall, Mayden never expressed frustration at an interlocutor’s language choice—in most cases, they were simply concerned about being addressed in a non-threatening manner. As Flores and Rosa (2015b) note, in foreign language education, racialized language learners may look and sound “native-like” in their first or second language, but it is unlikely that they will be acknowledged for it. The important issue for foreign language education mirrors a point already addressed in contexts of bilingual education: we can no longer continue to teach racialized language learners how to participate in “appropriate” language learning practices while abroad, especially when their safety may be on the line. What alternative models of foreign language educational justice in SA, then, can we envision?

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

173

8  Imagining SA, and German Language Education, Otherwise In Fig. 1, an article from the first volume of the Modern Language Journal in 1917 describes the benefits of using pictures in the German language classroom. Meanwhile almost one hundred years later, in their article in Foreign Language Annals, Barnes-Karol and Broner (2010) propose an approach to teaching German through the analysis of images linked to other texts. German language education has clearly been concerned with similar questions for a long time. These questions, like much of the talk that I analyzed in German SA contexts, are steeped in ideologies of native-speakership and white speaker- and listenership and thus require disruption. I would like to offer two recommendations for reimagining German SA. First, white German language educators must interrogate their own ideological notions of what German language education can and should be, and they must do so honestly. This must include recognizing and learning to address any forms of White Fragility, i.e., the state in which people make protective moves prompted by racial stress that has become too much to bear (DiAngelo 2018), that produce roadblocks for Scholars or Students of Color in German programs, by reading and learning deeply from SA research conducted by Scholars of Color and SA research that examines the experiences of Students of Color. We must ask ourselves: who do we imagine German language learners in SA to be? After all, our students are not just us, some 15, or 100, years later.

Fig. 1  Screenshot of an early article in the Modern Language Journal (Hess 1917)

174  J. McGREGOR

Additionally, we must rebuild our curricula around anti-racist objectives, clearly articulating the connections between language program, minor, major, and SA program/experience. A German language curriculum that explicitly prepares students for SA should not only make those programs financially accessible, but teach students to engage with detecting identification (Dervin 2010) and when relevant, using their emotional responses to texts, or ways of being positioned, to take action in useful ways. The use of discourse and conversation analytic methods in class can help students to elucidate how Othering results from how we position ourselves and one another in light of the broader structures in which we live and work. After all, we may be at least one hundred years overdue for a radical shift in German curricula, SA programs, and departments, but it is never too late to pursue SA otherwise. Acknowledgements   I am indebted to David Gramling for his comments on an earlier version of this chapter. Responsibility for any remaining errors is mine alone.

References Anton, Marta, and DiCamilla, Frederick J. 1999. “Socio-cognitive Functions of L1 Collaborative Interactions in the L2 Classroom.” Modern Language Journal 83 (2): 233–47. Anya, Uju. 2017. Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge. Barnes-Karol, Gwendolyn, and Maggie A. Broner. 2010. “Using Images as Springboards to Teach Cultural Perspectives in Light of the Ideals of the MLA Report.” Foreign Language Annals 43 (3): 422–45. Blommaert, Jan, and Piia Varis. 2011. “‘Enough Is Enough’: The Heuristics of Authenticity in Superdiversity.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 2. Dervin, Fred. 2010. “Assessing Intercultural Competence in Language Learning and Teaching: A Critical Review of Current Efforts in Higher Education.” In New Approaches to Assessment in Higher Education, edited by Fred Dervin and Eija Suomela-Salmi, 157–74. Bern: Peter Lang. DiAngelo, Robin. 2018. White Fragility. Why it’s so Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Boston: Beacon Press. Flores, Nelson. 2019. “The Seal of Biliteracy: Converting Biliteracy into a Neoliberal Multicultural Slogan.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, GA, March 2019. Flores, Nelson, and Jonathan Rosa. 2015a. “Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Language Education.” Harvard Educational Review 85 (2): 149–71.

9  STUDY ABROAD OTHERWISE 

175

———. 2015b. “The Raciolinguistic Catch-22.” Voices in Education. The Blog of Harvard Education Publishing, June 11. http://hepg.org/blog/theraciolinguistic-catch-22. García, Ofelia. 2009. “Education, Multilingualism, and Translanguaging in the 21st Century.” In Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local, edited by Ajit K. Mohanty, Minati Panda, Robert Phillipson, and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, 128–45. New Delhi, India: Orient BlackSwan. Gramling, David. 2019. “On Reelecting Monolingualism.” Invited lecture presented at Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, April. Heller, Monica. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London and New York: Longman. Hess, John A. 1917. “The Use of Pictures in the College German Class.” Modern Language Journal 8 (1): 308–14. Holborow, Marnie. 2013. “Applied Linguistics in the Neoliberal University: Ideological Keywords and Social Agency.” Applied Linguistics Review 4 (2): 229–57. Holborow, Marnie. 2015. Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge. Hurtado, Aída, and Abigail J. Stewart. 1997. “Through the Looking Glass: Implications of Studying Whiteness for Feminist Methods.” In Off White: Readings on Race, Power, and Society, edited by Michelle Fine et al., 297–311. New York: Routledge. Institute of International Education. 2018. “Open Doors 2018,” November 2018. https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors. Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1997. “The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker.” PMLA 112 (3): 359–69. ———. 2019. “Between Globalization and Decolonization: Foreign Languages in the Cross-Fire.” In Decolonizing Foreign Language Education: The Misteaching of English and Other Foreign Languages, edited by Donaldo Macedo, 50–72. New York: Routledge. Liebscher, Grit, and Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain. 2005. “Learner Code-Switching in the Content-Based Foreign Language Classroom.” Modern Language Journal 89 (2): 234–47. McGregor, Janice. 2016. “‘I Thought That When I Was in Germany, I Would Speak Just German’: Language Learning and Desire in Twenty-First Century Study Abroad.” L2 Journal 8 (2): 12–30. McGregor, Janice, and Julieta Fernández. 2019. “Theorizing Qualitative Interviews: Two Autoethnographic Reconstructions.” Modern Language Journal 103 (1): 227–47.

176  J. McGREGOR Phipps, Alison. 2003. “Languages, Identities, Agencies: Intercultural Lessons from Harry Potter.” Language and Intercultural Communication 3 (1): 6–19. Reagan, Timothy, and Terry A. Osborn. 2019. “Time for a Paradigm Shift in U.S. Foreign Language Education?: Revisiting Rationales, Evidence, and Outcomes.” In Decolonizing Foreign Language Education: The Misteaching of English and Other Foreign Languages, edited by Donaldo Macedo, 50–72. New York: Routledge. Swain, Merrill, and Sharon Lapkin. 1998. “Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together.” Modern Language Journal 82 (3): 320–37. Talburt, Susan, and Melissa A. Stewart. 1999. “What’s the Subject of Study Abroad? Race, Gender, and ‘Living Culture.’” Modern Language Journal 83 (2): 163–75. Tarone, Elaine, and Merrill Swain. 1995. “A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Second Language Use in Immersion Classes.” Modern Language Journal 79 (2): 166–78. Thomas, M’Balia. 2013. “The Problematization of Racial/Ethnic Minority Student Participation in U.S Study Abroad.” Applied Linguistics Review 4 (2): 365–90. Wagner, Cathy, Theresa Kulbaga, and Jennifer Cohen. 2017. “Imperial Partitioning in the Neoliberal University.” World Social and Economic Review of Contemporary Policy Issues 8: 61–78. Weber, Beverly. 2016. “Whiteness, WiG, and Talking About Race.” Women in German Yearbook 32: 189–202. Wei, Li. 2016. “New Chinglish and the Post-multilingualism Challenge: Translanguaging ELF in China.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 5 (1): 1–25. Wilkinson, Sharon. 2002. “The Omnipresent Classroom During Summer Study Abroad: American Students in Conversation with Their French Hosts.” Modern Language Journal 86 (2): 157–73. Willis Allen, Heather. 2010. “Language-Learning Motivation During ShortTerm Study Abroad: An Activity Theory Perspective.” Foreign Language Annals 43 (1): 27–49. Wolcott, Timothy. 2016. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Study Abroad in the 21st Century.” L2 Journal 8 (2): 3–11. Yildiz, Yasemin. 2012. Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition. New York: Fordham University Press.

CHAPTER 10

A Question of Inclusion: Intercultural Competence, Systematic Racism, and the North American German Classroom Adrienne Merritt

This chapter provides a discussion of culture and the intercultural approach, how it is defined and applied, followed by a discussion of race, racism, and racially charged dialogue and identity. The i­ntercultural approach stands at the center of my critique, which highlights the pitfalls of this approach for Students of Color and other students who have not acclimated to Western university culture. In particular, the concept of race poses a unique problem for intercultural approaches in the German curriculum for the simple fact that race (die Rasse)1 is fraught

1 Despite

the stigma of the word “Rasse”, I find it important to bring this word back into usage because for me it signifies a refusal to acknowledge not only the presence of racial discrimination and stereotypes within German-speaking cultures, but also that race as a socio-political identity concept was born out of early German cultural studies. Banning the word “Rasse” due to discomfort with its association during the Nazi period shows a degree of privilege that is often only afforded to white, elitist persons. In other words, rather than confronting the reality of “Rasse” and racism, the word falls out of use allowing ignorance

A. Merritt (*)  Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_10

177

178  A. MERRITT

with controversy and is thoroughly intertwined with debates concerning identity politics and representation on both sides of the Atlantic. With this chapter, I aim to illustrate the complexity of culture and the constantly adapting understanding of race within German language cultures and how these shifts impact the use of the intercultural approach. But beyond this, I signify the importance of criticism, discussion, and conversation about not just what we portray when we teach, but also how we teach and whether our methods foster inclusivity rather than perpetuate stigmas and stereotypes. I hope that my questions will compel other instructors to gauge the accessibility of their German language curriculum and whether the intercultural approach best serves students whose native culture is racially and/or socially disparate from a white, Eurocentric norm.

1  Culture: Big “C” and Small At its core, language learning surpasses a mere “acquisition” of a new language and helps learners develop a heightened awareness about their own culture through active challenging of stereotypes and assumptions about other cultures. As Claire Kramsch (1993) notes, second language instruction cannot be scaled down to “a balance of opposites or a moderate pluralism of opinions but [should be] a paradoxical, irreducible confrontation that may change one in the process” (Kramsch 1993, p. 231). In other words, a language culture considered “foreign” or “othered” by one’s native culture cannot remain unknown or othered through the learning process, particularly when comparative theoretical methods provide the basis for language pedagogy. Deconstruction or at least critique of preconceived assumptions about the target language culture in one’s native culture promotes broader questions about how culture, otherness, and difference are defined and conceptualized. Even the common (and now outdated) use of “foreign” to describe languages demonstrates the emphasis on difference and the unknown, rather than the critique and comparison of one’s native culture with that of another land or region. In essence, language learning denotes the crossing of

and censure when claims of racial discrimination are voiced. By ignoring the concept of race, racism and other race-based discriminations are perpetuated and preserved.

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

179

borders from the familiar to the unknown: linguistically, socially, and culturally but also interiorly. He Bai argues that “language is an important part of culture and a carrier of culture” (Bai 2016, p. 21). At the same time, culture, by its very definition, is complex. There are anthropological, sociological, historical, and political variations of how culture is defined, complicating a uniform connotation of the word without designating a particular context. As language pedagogues, our implicit bias about othered cultures and their languages impacts the classroom culture and a sense of community building. Confronting how we view and internalize a definition of culture leads to questions concerning the very basis of our methods— in this case, intercultural competency in language teaching. However, this implicit bias intersects more than our imagination of the “Other” on a native vs. foreign level. More specifically, race and socio-economic level impact accessibility to Eurocentric learning models, instilling preference for white, middle class backgrounds. When students originate from cultures outside of white, Eurocentric communities, how can we support Students of Color and non-European international students to acclimate to the North American educational culture? If, as Valerian F. Gabdulchakov and Evegeniya O. Shishova remark, the two principal motivations for the development of language are elemental—that is, “internal laws of language structure”—and ­cultural—“based on evaluation and selection of linguistic means originating from the educated strata of a society and directed to creating a common literary language” (Gabdulchakov and Shishova 2017, p. 3)—how do we account for the cultural and linguistic imprint of race, in particular for Students of Color? At the heart of this inquiry is the concept of culture and an acknowledgement that a white Eurocentric model has held sway over how German language pedagogy is assessed and conceptualized. Non-native language acquisition entails introspection and reevaluation of preconceived stereotypes. Kramsch (2013) explains, language learners learn who they are through their encounter with the Other. They cannot understand the Other if they don’t understand the historical and subjective experiences that made them who they are. But they cannot understand these experiences if they do not view them through the eyes of the Other. (p. 61)

180  A. MERRITT

The imagination of the Other no longer remains a static image and, through language proficiency, encourages evaluation not only of the Other but also of the Self. The turn away from the path of perspective outlined by native cultural practices becomes a turn toward new vantage points, during which previously unseen features come into view. Culture acts as an initial roadmap but in its superficial state cannot surmise the breadth and diversity of the Self or the Other. In this vein, Kathryn Sorrells (2013) defines culture as central to the way we view, experience, and engage with all aspects of our lives and the world around us. Thus, even our definitions of culture are shaped by the historical, political, social, and cultural contexts in which we live. (p. 3)

Culture then, according to Sorrells, is pivotal in the understanding of one’s native environment and those new or foreign to students and informs the comparison of the native and target cultures. I find in particular Sorrell’s mention of the historical significant because it connects to broader definitions of culture that include both nation and shared ancestral cultures. With this in mind, foreign language learning encompasses, part of what it means to learn someone else’s language […] to perceive the world through metaphors, the idioms and the grammatical patterns used by the Other, filtered through the subjectivity and a historicity developed in one’s mother tongue. (Kramsch 2013, pp. 61–62)

James Baldwin clarifies in Note of a Native Son ([1955] 2012) that “[p]eople are trapped in their history and their history”—whether linguistic, social, or political—“is trapped in them” (Baldwin [1955] 2012, p. 119). In essence, language instruction is not only the acquisition of and engagement with a different language culture. By acquainting ourselves with different metaphors, idioms, and grammar we actually loosen the hold that our native culture(s) and perspectives had on our imagination of the Other. However, as mentioned previously, culture is not singular in its usage. Culture encompasses another meaning, one that is wholly entwined with a European standard of morality, ethics, and artistic development and is tied to the mentality and process of colonization during the late fifteenth

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

181

through twentieth centuries. As Sorrells (2013) remarks, the Western European concept of culture dominated how culture and those deemed “cultured” were assessed: In the nineteenth-century, European anthropologists wrote detailed descriptions of the ways of life of “others,” generally characterizing non-European societies as less civilized, barbaric, “primitive,” and as lacking “culture.” These colonial accounts treated European culture as the norm and constructed Europe as superior by using the alleged lack of “culture” of non-European societies as justification for colonization. By the beginning of WWI, nine-tenths of the world had been colonized by European powers—a history of imperialism that continues to structure and impact intercultural communication today. (Sorrells 2013, p. 3)

While I take issue with the claim that these early botanists, biologists, and even armchair explorers were anthropologists in the modern sense, Sorrells does illuminate numerous hurdles that even the word “culture” poses. By its common definition, “culture” and the study of cultures originate in Europe and are thus grounded in a European framework of worldmaking and world-knowing. The shadow cast by white Eurocentric definitions of culture finds its roots in the Western imagination, and non-European cultures become subject to European assessment of how “cultured” a society may be. Furthermore, the colonization of other cultures promoted the establishment of a hierarchy between “cultured” and “primitive,” in addition to the desire to impose the European concept of culture and development upon cultural groups deemed lesser by European standards. One only needs to read G. W. F. Hegel, Immanuel Kant, and other Enlightenment writers to see the imprint and popularization of these ideas. Even within European standards of culture, “high culture” (i.e., literature, opera, visual arts) and “low culture” (i.e., popular theater, street art, folk art, songs) existed for millennia, dividing the societies between those of elite socio-economic status and those who were not (Sorrells 2013, pp. 3–4). Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century intellectuals tied culture, both “high” and “low,” with a cultural identity, an identity singular to the emerging nation-states. “Culture,” therefore, enfolds a shadow of a nationalistic persona, one that seeks to heighten patriotic symbolism and nostalgia. Even with the advent of communicative language pedagogy in the 1970s and 1980s, “speech communities were seen as grounded in

182  A. MERRITT

the nation—the national context in which national language was spoken by a homogeneous national citizenry” (Kramsch 2013, p. 64). Cultural and linguistic ties construct dichotomies of difference and can divide countries between nationalist and other, accepted and marginalized. Along these lines, what becomes the dominant culture within a society is often dictated by the “winners,” those who have successfully achieved control in government, policy, and education, and often does not reflect the culture(s) of a nation’s population. Few would argue against the fact that indigenous persons have been present (and at times were ruling bodies) on North American soil since well before missionaries, explorers, and conquistadors arrived. And yet, the prominent historical narrative, national language, and media portrayal have been dictated by European immigrants and their cultures. Due to the overtly Eurocentric bias, anthropologists during the 1950s acknowledged the European dominance of “culture” and its definition and, through the development of intercultural communication, brought some awareness to the ways that Western Europe viewed “culture” and acknowledged the validity of how persons of different cultures construct their own definitions of tradition and belonging.2 Cultural and intercultural competency are key facets of the intercultural approach in the instruction of standard German and other languages. The American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) defines intercultural communication as a complex activity that combines cross-cultural knowledge and languages skills, [which] involves initiating, understanding and responding to what is communicated, using culturally appropriate language and behavior in a given context. (ACTFL Can-Do Introduction 2017, p. 6)

2 Edward T. Hall and Clifford Geertz are two central figures in the early discussion and development of intercultural communication and training. Geertz defined culture more in terms of symbols and history, denoting it “a web of symbols that people use to create meaning and order in their lives,” later clarifying this as “an historically transmitted pattern of meaning embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life” (Sorrells, p. 4). While I take a bit of issue with his use of “men” in the above quotation, the definition is more solid and reflects the historical nature of culture and its complexity.

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

183

In contrast, Sorrells outlines comprehension of intercultural ­communication (and I would also argue culture in general) on three distinct levels: “(1) the micro, individual level; (2) the meso, cultural group level; and (3) the macro, geopolitical level” (Sorrells 2013, p. xvi). Along these lines, there exists a culture within the educational setting, within the classroom, and within specific academic ­disciplines. But in addition to these academic cultures, layered within the procedures and practices within the classroom, the national culture persists. Whereas ACTFL seats intercultural communication within “complex activities” that prompt students to use “culturally appropriate language and behavior in a given context,” the complexity of a given culture is situated within the standardized language forms of the language classroom, projecting a semblance of uniformity in the target language and linguistic expression of culture (ACTFL Can-Do 2017, p. 6). In the case of North American universities, the dominance of Western European definitions of culture is palpable. German Studies and most academic disciplines find their roots in Eurocentric cultural models on both sides of the Atlantic. Theories on second language acquisition and pedagogy were developed and persist by way of organized and normalized avenues of academic discourse, most of which reside in university departments entrenched within white European concepts of culture and language. In this regard, student success in our curricula is bound up with their socialization into this Eurocentric model. J. Halberstam reflects upon the university culture in his monograph, The Queer Art of Failure (2011), and critiques the persistence of the academic specialization, despite the fact that these institutions and their departments (read specialization) were developed over a century ago. Halberstam places this narrative within the confines of a capitalistic society governed by successes or failures, in which success demonstrates knowledge and conformity and failure depicts a lacking of some kind (Halberstam 2011, p. 7). “Successful” students in German language and literature courses demonstrate a proficiency not just in the language and course materials but, perhaps more importantly, a knowledge and comfort in the modes of instruction and the atmosphere (i.e., culture) within the classroom and the postsecondary education writ large.

184  A. MERRITT

2  Intercultural Approach(es) Turning to pedagogical method, the intercultural approach/communication is often simply defined as the “[demonstration of] one’s knowledge of culture through language” (van Houten and Shelton 2018, p. 35). At the same time, the definition of culture often takes several roles and can represent anything from a highly stereotypical depiction of a set of customs and traditions to a mélange of concepts that are consolidated into some semblance of a national culture. Simplistic depictions of any culture not only falsely portray a nation as homogenous but also act to further nationalistic formulations of “native” and “other.” Lack of representation and inclusion of marginalized persons both in German-speaking countries and North America propagates white Eurocentric definitions of culture and belonging: the (racial) Other remains marginalized, despite shared traditions and heritage with the “native” identity. And yet it is through culture—and its linguistic intersection—that humans connect. Instructors face the gargantuan task of generating and sustaining a classroom culture that enables, empowers, and includes as many students as they can reach. Culture, it seems, does truly lie in the heart of the issues we encounter within the classroom (i.e., reaching students of varying cultural backgrounds, creating a classroom culture that promotes participation through respectful linguistic exchange, etc.). With a concern for diversity and decolonization of German language curriculum, the task then falls on the instructor to confront stereotypes about the target language culture while simultaneously increasing students’ cultural competence. The question then arises, how we can thoughtfully and insightfully teach culture to students and at the same time complicate the concept of culture itself and attend to its diversity? Unsurprisingly, ACTFL promotes interweaving language instruction with culture to create a more meaningful classroom and learning experience. “Leading with Culture,” as ACTFL calls it, has been linked to a longer-lasting student participation in language courses and greater student retention beyond the language requirement fulfillment. Jacque Bott van Houten and Kathleen Shelton define “Intercultural Communication Competence,” or ICC, as “using language skills, and cultural knowledge and understanding, in authentic contexts to effectively interact with people” (2018, p. 35). Within the field of psychology, identity negotiation, co-cultural theory, assimilation, and acculturation represent processes related to and coinciding with intercultural communication

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

185

(Sorrells 2013, p. xvi). Therefore, personal perspective entails not only an acknowledgment of the differences between one’s own culture and that of another, but also the (re-)definition of and reflection upon one’s own identity within one’s native culture, bringing our discussion ­full-circle to Kramsch earlier in this chapter.3 In linguistics, verbal and non-verbal communication—both aspects of the intercultural communicative approach—represent more than the signed and the signifier of words and gestures. Language entails a common meaning, a core understanding innately more complex than memorization of vocabulary and grammar. In essence, language as cultural performance surpasses a simple reading of cues, rather it necessitates translating, deciphering, and interpreting signs. Due to the complex relationship between culture and language, ACTFL places importance on cultural competence as a mode through which target language proficiency is gained.4 The paradox of ACTFL’s good intentions is the reality that the target language is standardized and therefore constructed outside of the culture(s) it originally developed. In addition, language proficiency and cultural competence are assessed separately with minimal overlap, complicating how Kramsch and Sorrells understand language as an expression and even performance of culture. Turning to German, language acquisition presents a historical challenge. The stigma of the National-Socialist dehumanization of the racialized Other haunts the German-speaking imagination into the present. From the Nuremberg Rassengesetze with their concentration on racial purity to the condemnation and attempted extermination of many nonwhite and non-European persons, the legacy of Nazi use and abuse of “race” plagues current discussions about “Germanness” and racism in a self-prescribed “colorblind” society. The discomfort concerning discussions of race leads at times to the denial of its existence (“race as a socio-political construct”) and at other times as a historical notion that has been left in the rubble of WWII and a short colonialist period. In current debates about Germany’s colonialist past, public conscience faces the realization that their complex interaction with and subjugation of 3 One only need read Emine Sevgi Özdamar’s “Mutterzunge” (1990) and the numerous poets who wrote Gastarbeiterpoesie to encounter the ongoing negotiation between native culture and language with that of the target or new culture and language, particularly when a person moves to country where the target language is spoken. 4 See diagrams, Can-Do Statements, 7.

186  A. MERRITT

other races predates Nazi control and legislation (e.g., renaming streets in Berlin—Mohrenstrasse, for example—that reflect outdated, racist classifications of Persons of Color). Furthermore, the resistance to dialogues concerning race and the increase in hate crimes against immigrants suggests that racism is alive and well in German-speaking cultures, as much as in other Western cultures.5 Hate crimes in Germany rose from 3598 reported crimes in 2016 to 7913 in 2017, marking not only over a 50% increase in hate crimes but also a greater number of reported crimes in Germany than in the United States in the same year (OSCE website). As Priscilla Layne, Clarence Lusane, and others have wondered, how then can there exist racism without a concept of race in Germany? And, conversely, how can the existence of race continue to be denied (or relegated to the past) when it has become a central facet of identity for millions? We must then ask ourselves how and to what extent the intercultural approach can facilitate discussion and understanding of the target language culture with regard to race and racial identity within the North American German language classroom. In America, if Black or African American cultures are categorically subjugated or denied significance within the academic setting as a result of the racist legacies of culture, how can instructors thoughtfully guide students, when they have never personally lived with a racially marginalized status? Furthermore, what tactics or training can instructors obtain to help students acclimate to both academic culture and that of the target language, particularly if a part of their identity—their race—is subject to debate and validation? Despite the critical framework that intercultural competency proposes, the underlying basis for language learning is that culture, like language, can be boiled down to core values and/or attributes (i.e., stereotypes) that vary or are synonymous with our own. During the process of condensation, a homogenous portrayal of society emerges, one that often whitewashes national identity and evidence of racial stigmas, stereotypes, and discrimination. As Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie articulates, “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but they are 5 In November 2018, the FBI released its report on hate crimes in the United States. Their report shows an increase in crimes against persons who are Black or African American, as well as Jewish religious background. In addition, 29 deaths of transgender individuals were noted, the highest number in a single year. Overall number of hate crimes rose from 6063 in 2016 to 7106 in 2017 for single bias hate crimes. See https://ucr.fbi. gov/hate-crime/2017 for the full report and tabulated data.

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

187

incomplete. They make one story become the only story” (TEDGlobal 2009). The intercultural approach to second language acquisition relies in many ways upon the concept of stereotype, encouraging the student to thoughtfully compare and contrast their own diverse experience with that of standardized target language and its overgeneralized culture. The focus is introspective, a revision and reevaluation of the Self (first) in contrast to the Other (second). Perspective shifts for the language student, it is supposed, through interaction with authentic materials from the target language culture. The problem with this model is that the Other remains stagnant and fossilized, reduced to stereotypes and sweeping generalizations in order to educate the Self. Add to this discussion a disregard and rejection of race in the target language culture and we begin to see the flaws in the intercultural approach for Students of Color: the racialized body within a white space both experiences discrimination and yet said race supposedly does not exist. It is Schrödinger’s cat of racism, simultaneously alive and dead depending upon who opens the lid of society.

3  Race and Racial Identity in German Consciousness? In order to confront the reality of race and racial discrimination both in German-speaking countries and the North American German classroom, it falls upon instructors to acknowledge that race and racism in Germany pre-date Nazi control and grew out of centuries of “anthropological” studies. Fatima El-Tayeb explains that postwar West Germany sought to transform its xenophobic and racist society from a Nazi fascist mentality to that of a “color blind society” (El-Tayeb 2003, p. 461). Despite a façade of progressivism, underneath the post-war silence around race, pseudo-scientific, biologist theories that originated in late nineteenth century lived on in Germany. The nation cut itself off from post-colonial discourses, in which minorities became active agents and race was deconstructed as a ‘natural category.’ (El-Tayeb 2003, p. 462)

Refashioning societal consciousness to omit discussions and questions of race also entailed the ability to deny the presence of race-driven categorization and racism that had remained an undercurrent in German history, biological science, and imagination since the eighteenth century.

188  A. MERRITT

Germany could claim social amnesia with regard to race and racism, a willful choice afforded to white Germans that promoted the erasure of the presence of the African diaspora on German soil predating the Nazi preoccupation with race and race laws (El-Tayeb 2003, p. 462). The reality is that race and the existence of racism has been fairly well documented in Germany since the eighteenth century, although “race” first appeared in its modern connotation in the later s­eventeenth century. Coined by François Bernier in 1670, “race” became a means to classify persons by skin color (Lusane 2003, p. 23). Later in the eighteenth century, physician, naturalist, and anthropologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840) named five main groups of humans (Caucasians, Ethiopians, Americans [as in Indigenous peoples in the Americas], Malayans, and Mongolians) and popularized the term “Caucasian” for white Europeans. In many ways, Blumenbach paid homage to his mentor Carolus Linneaus, who himself had constructed a taxonomy of four racial groups decades before (Lusane 2003, p. 24). Eighteenth-century classification of the natural world increased its usage (e.g., family, species, genus, etc.)—also a result of Linneaus’s work—and coincided with the exploration of the Americas. European explorers took stock not only of the flora and fauna from the region but also its peoples. The Age of Exploration, as it is fondly coined, demonstrates an unthoughtful use of the intercultural approach and communication. Basing their comparisons well within European culture, botanists, biologists, early anthropologists, and others constructed a picture of the New World within the framework of their own cultures. People and their languages were studied and valued for their worth as determined by European standards, placing them within the hierarchy of “high” and “low cultures.” The European imagination established the “inferior” and “barbaric” nature of these newly “discovered” cultures, and yet the fascination with these races and their cultures simultaneously exoticized and eroticized their existence and their skin tone. In truth, and despite centuries of development and growth in the former New World, the establishment of European dominance over the Americas remains as palpable as the prevailing culture of white dominance in American academia, politics, and society. German fascination with Black bodies has existed since the seventeenth century, El-Tayeb argues, and documentation in various newspaper articles, scientific studies, and literary texts points to the presence

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

189

of Africans and persons of African descent in Germany at that time (El-Tayeb 2003, p. 265). She explains that, Beginning in the seventeenth century, exhibits of ‘savages’ became an increasingly successful mass entertainment in German (and other European) metropoles, reaching a peak with the colonial exhibit of 1896, which attracted an audience of two million. (El-Tayeb 2003, p. 265)

Fascination and exoticization of the Black body permeated the German imagination, viewing them as artifacts rather than humans, which created distinct and prevalent connections between racist practices in the ­slavery-ridden Americas and colony-seeking Europe. The reality for Africans and Afro-Germans living in Germany is that the question of race and racist discourse has persisted. At the beginning of this chapter, I cited a line from James Baldwin’s Notes from a Native Son, which highlighted the impact of history, not only within public memory but also within each individual. In the final essay of the collection, Baldwin explores the impact of white European culture on perceptions of Blackness through his experience in a small Swiss Alpine village. He paints the portrait of a Black body entering a completely white space, one that viewed him with curiosity and excitement, while at the same time betraying well-established discourses of racism and what we would now call microaggressions. Baldwin is placed on display, repeatedly called derogatory racial terms by smiling faces, and prodded in a similar fashion to the human zoos of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Baldwin’s experience from the mid-century is not isolated and reflects an ongoing trend within German-speaking cultures that remains unchecked. Race and in particular racial profiling is often confined within European history to past events and practices. Most notably (and infamously) are the Rassengesetze of 1930s Nuremberg under the Nazi regime. However, the pseudo-anthropological studies which provided the basis for these laws began centuries before, calling the presumed Nazi origins of cultural bias, discrimination practices, and racism into question. More recently, the call for recognition of German colonial brutality in Namibia against the Herero and Nama tribes during the first decade of the twentieth century demonstrates the continued difficulties that Persons of Color have faced, despite reparation attempts in a divided Germany and after unification.

190  A. MERRITT

3.1   Die deutsche Sch-einheit May Ayim (1960–1996), together with other Afro-Germans, broached the subject of persisting racism in Germany in the 1980s and 90s. The authors of Farbe Bekennen and others criticized the attempt to portray German society as an enlightened, post-racist society and restructured their discourse to reflect the harsh reality that Germanness continued to be synonymous with whiteness. In the poem “Grenzenlos und unverschämt,” May Ayim articulates succinctly the situation of being German and of African descent during unification in the title of the poem: “grenzenlos und unverschämt / ein gedicht gegen die deutsche sch-einheit” (Ayim 1997, p. 92). The play on words “Einheit” (unity) and “Scheinheit” (falseness or something phony) points to the seemingly celebratory notion of reunification that falters because it only unites those who are German and white. As Karein Goertz explains, “[t]he hushed-up truth (sh/sch!)…is that German unity is an illusion” (Goertz 2003, p. 312). The rhythm, the syncopation of lines in May Ayim’s poem express an essence of writings by her friend and mentor, Audre Lorde (1934–1992), as well as the musicality of Langston Hughes’s (1902–1967) lyricism. Ayim’s style brings Afro-Germans and Black Germans into the fold of the African diaspora, fighting against the sea of racial profiling and racism birthed on both sides of the Atlantic by combining Black American lyric with German language. In Ayim’s first collection of poetry, blues in schwarz weiß (1995), the connection between poetry and blues is immediately evident. Developed during the “post-slavery consciousness in the United States”, the blues “[b]oth structurally and thematically […] provide a compelling model for the lyrical, empowering, and communal expression of both grief and anger” (Goertz 2003, p. 314). Ayim’s powerful lines convey frustration and persistence in the face of opposition and conflict concerning her identity as both German and African (ll.1–3; 8–12). Published after German reunification, Ayim’s sentiments continue to ring true, particularly in light of the ongoing depiction of non-white Germans as foreigners in textbooks and media, the rise in support of xenophobic right-of-center groups (AfD and PEGIDA/LEGIDA), and a general avoidance to discuss race and identity politics by German society. Pedagogically, Ayim’s poetic voice provides a critique of Germanspeaking culture that can stimulate discussion within North American

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

191

German curriculum and much-needed representation of People of Color (POC) in German-speaking countries that defy stereotypes. 3.2   (Un)Willkommen bei den Hartmanns In contrast to Ayim’s poetry, Simon Verhoeven’s highly popularized Willkommen bei den Hartmanns (2016) highlights the continued discomfort, reluctance, and—at least in the plot of the film—denial of race, racially charged violence, and racism within Germany. Verhoeven’s use of comedy in the film displays a continued denial and discomfort concerning race, one that falls short in its critique—if in fact that was the original intention. The movie’s only Turkish-German character (Dr. Tarek Berger played by Elyas M’Barek) faces ongoing discrimination in the workplace and is the sole soothsayer of inequality and exclusion within Germanspeaking society. The dismissive nature of the Hartmann family appears in various forms, from silent complacency to active refusal of increasing racialized threats. Until racial violence and the escalating fury of an angry mob come literally to their doorstep, the Hartmanns are dismissive and fail to silence microaggressions disguised as witticisms among white peers. Embarrassingly, Diallo, an African refugee taken in by the Hartmann family, is “saved” from deportation by his white foster family, smacking of white savior imagery and denying Diallo from autonomy and independence in deciding his own fate. The motivations for the Hartmanns fostering Diallo are self-serving and reflect more their own desire to demonstrate a charitable nature rather than altruism. The presence of racialized bodies in the film does not alleviate the presence of discrimination, but, in fact, exercises—through its misguided attempt at racial slurs as humor—active participation in racism and, at best, silent complacency. The viewer can laugh, find their happy ending, and remain unscathed. In essence, the film fails to depict the one thing it sought to espouse: the modern, post-racist white German family. Perhaps the most troubling result of the Hartmann film is its popularity with North American German instructors and professors, particularly those seeking representation of non-white German speakers on film. In my opinion, there exists only one potential framework for Verhoeven’s film: critical analysis partnered with historical background about Africans in Germany and critical race theory (Whiteness included).

192  A. MERRITT

4  Extending a Hand, Fostering Inclusion Returning to some of my initial questions, what can we do for our Students of Color in German courses in light of complex and incomplete discussions about race and racism in Germany? Although this chapter maintained a highly critical view of Germany and its history, the reality is that transparency and open criticism are central to helping our Students of Color encounter a balanced understanding of German culture. As educators, opening discussions about stereotypes and unjust racial portrayals benefits all students. The inclusion of critical analyses of films like Wilkommen bei den Hartmanns and exposure to the poetry of May Ayim and music by Afro-Germans and other POC in Germany construct a ­different portrait of German language and culture than the stereotypical, whitewashed depictions found in textbooks for North American students.6 But, in many ways, to turn away from the antiquated, exclusionary discourse—a re-orientation (to reference Sara Ahmed)—begins with the mindset of educators. Extending a hand and making moves to foster inclusion is initiated when educators take moments of introspection to question and critique how they approach race, linguistic difference, and discriminatory stereotypes. Inserting examples of marginalized persons and voices into curriculum should not be seen as an attempt to reach out to Students of Color nor to increase their enrollments within German courses. This practice not only emphasizes the participation of the marginalized student but also wrongly assumes that the fault of low Student of Color enrollments falls on the students. In reality, there are no other determining factors than educators and their approaches to curriculum development, systematic racism, and inclusion within classroom culture. Inclusion enters the classroom and academic cultures through the emphasis not on what we teach but how we frame our analyses and what we exemplify as cultural artifacts. All this occurs well before any student, let alone a Student of Color, is present in that space. Inclusion without recognition of racialized spaces—including our classrooms—cannot succeed.

6 There are a couple of exceptions to the lackluster portrayals in German textbooks for US students. Weiter geht’s provides a socio-critical lens to German culture and stereotypes, as well as highlighting the words of German POC about living in Germany while still being viewed as a foreigner.

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

193

Inclusion requires integrated instructional critique that “calls out” the overarching educational culture in North America as racialized, as well as an understanding by instructors that racial discrimination will persist without active deconstruction within the learning space. Curriculum materials can function as pipelines for nationalistic and generalized renditions of culture—even those deemed “authentic materials”—and material selection demonstrates to students and other educators the (lack of) awareness of the instructor with regard to race, the imprint of Eurocentric definitions of culture, and curricular accessibility for non-European international students. Sprinkling some racial diversity in the form of hip hop or Afro-German poetry to flavor the overflowing pot of German whiteness preserves the original taste and falls flat. These additions of cultural production by racialized persons furthermore fail to challenge the erroneously derived portrayals of cultural homogeneity because they essentialize the Other as successful examples of marginalized persons and perpetuate their positionality on the periphery. The error lies not solely in portrayals of culture in stereotypified form. As I have outlined throughout this chapter, the very culture of the classroom, its pedagogy, and learning materials harbor the implicit bias of educators. Without addressing the inherently discriminatory (and white Eurocentric) nature of curriculum and course design, of institutions and pedagogical methods, no amount of representation of marginalized persons added to existing educational models will erase its harmful potential effects on Students of Color. In my opinion, critical analytical skills beginning within first-semester German language courses have the ability to check some of the negative side-effects of cultural stereotyping and essentialization. What is more, casting a critical gaze upon textbook materials, such as depictions of family, level-appropriate readings, and overtly Euro-Christian holidays and traditions, provides the necessary space for introspection and contemplation upon how students as emerging non-native speakers of German might orient themselves within German-speaking cultures. Allowing students to engage critically with learning materials from first semester onwards also encourages active participation in the learning process and the construction of the classroom learning environment. Interlanguaging may provide a fruitful medium to enhance engaged language learning and allow students to interact with less stereotypified authentic texts. From song lyrics to slang, cultural artifacts from contemporary Germanspeaking culture do not demonstrate monolingualism. Perhaps it is

194  A. MERRITT

finally time to dispel the façade that German is immune to globalization and the imprint of other languages. Dialects provide additional fodder for linguistic diversity. Even within America, Black English, or Ebonics, is a prevalent dialect of American English, deriving speech patterns from West African roots as well as the American Black culture that developed in parallel to other cultures within the United States. While the existence and prevalence of Ebonics remains heavily under debate (Delpit 2008, p. xx), the statistics from within the classroom reveal that it is a very real concern, one that impedes acclimation into the educational culture. This is due in part to a lack of recognition that the culture of the classroom is that of Standard American English and thus tied to the Western European roots of the founding fathers. As Lisa Delpit notes, During each of the peaks of public interest in African American language and education, scholars have pointed out, but with little public a­ ttention, that it may not be the children’s language that causes educational problems, but the educational bureaucracy’s response to the language. ­ (Delpit 2008, p. xxiii)

Similar to the initial definition of culture or the value of a culture, Black or African American English (Ebonics) has been framed as linguistically lesser by public discussion, due in part to the dominance of Western culture within the classroom and how we continue to define culture and what it means to be “cultured” (Delpit 2008, p. xxiii). Returning to the situation of Students of Color in German classrooms, if language and culture are viscerally intertwined, it falls upon the instructor to acknowledge that the native culture of the Student of Color may differ from the native culture of the classroom, and, in conjunction, may differ more significantly from the Western European ancestral culture out of which both the educational culture in the United States and the culture of the target language (German) stem. With ongoing concerns about marginalized student enrollment in German, the concept of the inclusive classroom exposes not only a fairly administrational preoccupation with statistics but also the slow realization that the basis for our education—from pedagogical theories to cultural comparisons in second language acquisition curricula—find their roots in a Christian, Eurocentric mentality. These practices also assume that students within our classrooms have acclimated to white European cultural norms.

10  A QUESTION OF INCLUSION: INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE … 

195

American and German racial theory are not only intertwined but developed in conversation with one another. Without confronting our own biases and mindsets, the ability to instruct marginalized students is diminished. If motivations are guided by increasing Student of Color enrollment without developing strategies to adapt the curriculum to recognize and expose shortcomings in attempts—as well as to honestly discuss the real, lived experiences of marginalized persons—efforts to reach out will falter. Acknowledging that the college and university education—and arguably also primary and secondary education—are situated squarely within white Eurocentric culture is a solid initial step toward recognizing the pitfalls of intercultural methods for marginalized students and that the guidelines of success vs. failure within German curriculum may be dictated by terms that are not as transparent as we intend. But despite the critical tone, my aim is not to discourage nor disparage any attempts to reach out to marginalized students, particularly Students of Color. Rather, this piece seeks to bring awareness to the question of race in Germany and the ways in which the intercultural communicative method may fail to reach students impacted by racism due to their identity. In essence, before we even attempt to educate others, particularly marginalized students, we must first reconsider our own conceptualization of the Other and educate ourselves.

References Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. 2009. “The Danger of a Single Story.” TEDGlobal, July 2009. https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_ adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story. Ayim, May. 1997. Grenzenlos und unverschämt. Berlin: Orlanda Frauenverlag. Bai, He. 2016. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Advertisements from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures. English Language Teaching 9 (8): 21–27. Baldwin, James. [1955] 2012. “Stranger in the Village.” In Notes of a Native Son. Boston: Beacon Press. Can-Do Introduction. 2017. ACTFL Website PDF. https://www.actfl.org/ sites/default/files/CanDos/Can-Do%20Introduction.pdf. Delpit, L. 2002 [2008]. The Skin We Speak: Thoughts on Language and Culture in the Classroom. Edited by Lisa Delpit and Joanne Kligour Dowdy. New York: The New Press.

196  A. MERRITT El-Tayeb, Fatima. 2003. “‘If You Can’t Pronounce My Name, You Can Just Call Me Pride’: Afro-German Activism, Gender and Hip Hop.” Gender and History 15 (3, November): 460–86. Gabdulchakov, Valerian F., and Evegeniya O. Shishova. 2017. “Educating Teachers for a Multicultural School Environment.” In Intercultural Communication: Strategies, Challenges and Research, edited by Brenda Griffin, 1–42. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Goertz, Karein K. 2003. “Showing Her Colors: An Afro-German Writes the Blues in Black and White.” Callaloo 26 (2, Spring): 306–19. Halberstam, J. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2013. “Culture in Foreign Language Teaching.” Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 1 (1, January): 57–78. Lusane, Clarence. 2003. Hitler’s Black Victims: The Historical Experience of AfroGermans, European Blacks, Africans, and African Americans in the Nazi Era. New York and London: Routledge. OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). 2018. “Germany.” OSCE, November 16, 2018. http://hatecrime.osce.org/ germany. Sorrells, Kathryn. 2013. Intercultural Communication: Globalization and Social Justice. Los Angeles: Sage. van Houten, Jacque Bott, and Kathleen Shelton. 2018. “Focus Topic. Leading with Culture.” The Language Educator, January/February, 34–39.

CHAPTER 11

Supporting Graduate Students of Color in German Studies: A Syllabus Brenna Reinhart Byrd

As a white feminist linguist and German Studies scholar writing a chapter on how to best support graduate students of color, I am taking to heart Beverly Weber’s warnings for other white feminist scholars looking to enter the conversation of making German Studies more inclusive. Weber calls out the term “inclusivity” as “paternalistic language of benevolent tolerance as a gift extended by those who have power: somebody includes, somebody is included” (2016, p. 190). Instead of asking how better to include underrepresented students, Weber suggests that feminist German scholars should focus on examining and challenging their (our) own privilege and engage more in the research and activism of scholars of color. She echoes Sarah Ahmed’s work in On Being Included (2012), pointing out that often work on anti-racism “can easily tip to white narcissism” when the sole reason for the work is to feel good about one’s identity as an ally (Weber 2016, pp. 193–94). The focus of anti-racist work in academia should thus not be on those in power graciously making space for others, and congratulating themselves on that effort but in

B. R. Byrd (*)  Department of Modern and Classical Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_11

197

198  B. R. BYRD

critically examining why they (we) are taking up that space to begin with. Therefore, the task of this chapter is to outline how faculty, particularly those charged with mentoring graduate students, must shift their narrative from one of inclusion to one of supporting scholars of color as they navigate the hostile waters of academia, while actively working to create an anti-racist space within one’s own department and field. I refer to this chapter as a syllabus, because in this type of framework I decenter myself as the expert. Instead of claiming the knowledge and opinions presented here as my own, I position myself as mediator in order to call attention to important scholarship on these issues. Throughout this piece I will present research on the psychological threats that undermine the success of graduate students of color at every turn, such as marginalization, microaggressions, and stereotype threat, and how these threats are compounded in predominantly white fields such as German Studies. Additionally, I will outline the suggestions put together by experts on how best to support these students through anti-racist work in our classrooms and on our campuses, but most importantly, by listening to and believing the experiences of graduate students of color. This is, however, more than a literature review. I call this a syllabus because this is the required reading that we all must complete if we hope to maintain our relevance as a discipline.

1  The Whiteness of German Studies Before we discuss how to support our graduate students, we must first make it explicitly clear that German Studies as it currently exists is a white space that upholds a conception of Germanness that is fundamentally white. The whiteness of German Studies is bound up in the nationalist mythologies prescribing what it means to be Deutsch, an attempt at shaping a pure ethnonational identity that has been (violently) constructed and defended over the course of centuries. Obtuseness against attempts to widen the definition of what it means to be German have led to erasure of non-white voices in the cultural and social historiography of Germany and German-speaking regions (Madley 2005; Sammartino 2009). This erasure is also perpetuated by our own field through the dearth of writers of color on our syllabi and the othering terms used to describe the literature and art of people for many generations. Moreover, the erasure takes on a particularly nefarious shape through whitewashing: e.g., establishing a historic figure as German in light of more complex,

11  SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS OF COLOR … 

199

intersectional identity background. This whitewashing is driven by a desire to claim a homogenous German Leitkultur that one wishes to trace back in a linear thread through time, despite evidence to the contrary. Asoka Esuruoso (2014) demonstrates the erasure of Black German history using the figure of St. Maurice: Many early depictions of Saint Maurice dating from the 15th century or even earlier often depict him with a noble dark face in rich shades of brown and ebony. But as time passed these depictions shifted. The color of his skin faded. What was once a rich deep brown whitened; by the 16th century, St. Maurice was no longer Black and no longer African… So why, you might ask, is a long-dead saint important? Because Black European History, especially Black German history, has so often been whitewashed, and Maurice the soldier, Maurice the martyr, Maurice the venerated German saint, is a beautiful example of the little white lies history has been whispering for far too long. As the ancient sword and spurs of Saint Maurice proclaim, Black German history did not spring from the wreckage of the First and Second World Wars, or even German colonization, as it was once believed. Black history has been here far longer and yet, like the body and face of Maurice, has been actively whitened and negligently forgotten over time. But we forget history at our own peril. (pp. 15–16)

This erasure still registers as praxis in the field of German Studies. In particular, it registers in the literary and cultural canon, which includes authors and historical figures who exist within the constraints of the Leitkultur. Authors who do not fit into this lineage become part of special seminars that are offered irregularly at the discretion of faculty teaching advanced topics courses. Yet, to relegate an author of color to a class on Migrantenliteratur (Migrant Literature), instead of including them in a seminar on poetry or twentieth-century literature, for example, is to deny that author of their Germanness, and to erase evidence of the plurality of German-speaking peoples from the definition of what it means to be German. Every single syllabus, regardless of time period or topic, should include diverse voices and perspectives. Often in response to such requests, faculty argue that the confines of the semester prevent such inclusion, seeing the inclusion of an author of color as requiring the removal of a canonical author deemed more important. But what makes that canonical author important and to whom? What is the end goal of engaging with that author, and is it not possible to reach the same goals with a different text? If the purpose is simply to be able to identify those

200  B. R. BYRD

who are part of the canon, then surely we can redefine who becomes part of that canon, as canons are abstract creations of cultural capital, defined and maintained by those who benefit from their existence.

2  Mental Health, Mental Trauma In addition to addressing the whiteness embedded in German Studies, we also need to acknowledge that marginalization, racial microaggressions, and stereotype threat cause psychological toll for students of color when they enter such a predominantly white field. In a thorough review of research on the role of mentoring in graduate student success, David L. Brunsma et al. state that “the literature makes one thing very clear: Graduate students of color face racism, discrimination, and daily microaggressions within their departments” (2017, p. 5). In addition to the regular stress of graduate study, being a person of color in a predominantly white space can often have debilitating psychological effects, resulting in students either not thriving in their degree program, or at the very least deciding against pursuing a career in academia. Marginalization in the form of isolation can negatively impact student well-being. Being the only student of color in a program, which is often the case for students of color in German Studies graduate programs, means not having an instantly shared background and history with their peers. This can translate into not forming friendships as quickly as others in the program and feeling left out of socializing and bonding experiences with students and faculty in the department (Gay 2004, pp. 267– 68; Brunsma et al. 2017, p. 8). The structure of the university itself can also contribute to this isolation. As Geneva Gay explains: In addition to physical isolation, graduate students of color are isolated culturally. The universities they attend and the programs they study are not routinely multicultural. Nor are the icons and symbols [Predominantly white Institutions] use to signify their identity and importance culturally inclusive… Students of color are immersed in a world that is not their own. It is as if they were ‘guests’ on their own campuses. As such, they cannot ever totally relax […]. Always being ‘on stage’ or ‘in the spotlight’ can be a very demanding existence. (2004, p. 269)

In response to curriculums dominated, sometimes exclusively, by white authors, students of color wishing to research authors of color are often

11  SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS OF COLOR … 

201

met with unenthusiastic responses from both faculty and fellow students. When challenged on this topic, instructors often put the burden on the students to produce the missing literature. As Shampa Biswas (2019) argues, non-white students in white spaces feel both “seen and unseen”: • On the one hand, they feel “invisible”—and inaudible. In certain settings and forums they are trying to be seen and heard but are constantly overlooked. Students notice, for example, if the professor calls only on white men in class discussions about male-normed topics such as “international security.” • On the other hand is the problem of being “hypervisible.” Either they are viewed as representatives of “their cultures” (e.g., an international student asked to speak for her country in class), or they are seen as the source of some infraction (e.g., a Black male student profiled and singled out to show his ID in order to enter a campus party). Faculty should therefore be mindful of our in class behavior to make sure students are equally called on to speak, regardless of the topic, and no one or two students are expected to speak for entire populations or identity groups. Additionally, in our curriculum design we need to be more intentional in how we incorporate authors of color into the class. Just as adding one faculty member of color does not negate the whiteness of a department, adding one author of color does not negate the whiteness of a syllabus, especially if the instructor expects students of color to contribute more than their peers to the discussion of that particular author. We must do the work ourselves of finding and integrating authors of color to the curriculum in meaningful ways that avoid tokenism or relying on students to fill in the gaps for us. Chester Pierce et al. (1977) establish the term microaggressions to call attention to the subtle ways in which internalized and structural racism emerges in everyday interactions. As they argue, microaggressions are the “chief vehicle for proracist behaviors,” which support and reinforce a structurally white supremacist society that requires non-whites to “be dependent and deferential (in regard to time, space, energy, mobility) in all interpersonal interactions” (pp. 64–65). Derald Wing Sue et al. expand this definition of racial microaggressions as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate

202  B. R. BYRD

hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color” (Sue et al. 2007, p. 271; see also Torres et al. 2010, p. 1076). Both definitions acknowledge a structure of white supremacy underlying these commonplace interactions that are so ingrained that its perpetrators can be from any race or background and can perform microaggressions without understanding them as racist acts. Sue et al. (2007) in their expansion of Pierce’s work, go into great detail describing the different types of microaggressions, which I will briefly summarize below. Microassaults are usually recognized as racist acts by today’s standards, and, as such, are usually used by those who recognize their own discriminatory beliefs. Microassaults include derogatory slurs, namecalling, or other overt discriminatory acts (Sue et al. 2007, p. 274). While microassaults are easier to recognize as racism, those who engage in them do not feel that their behavior is especially harmful and will often downplay the intent of such actions in what Tim Wise calls white denial (2008). Typically the offenders will use multiple strategies to avoid acknowledging any substantial wrongdoing, especially when their actions reach those outside of their intended audience (Holling et al. 2014). Microinsults are, in comparison to microassaults, more subtle snubs that indicate prejudiced attitudes and can be largely unintentional. A classic example mentioned by Sue et al. (2007) is the comment that a person of color is so articulate or well-spoken, which sends the message that people of color do not usually appear to be educated or intelligent (p. 276). While the person saying this may conceive of this as a compliment, their underlying assumption that articulateness would be surprising is an insult embedded within this statement. Giving credit to a white student for restating an idea a student of color said earlier in class is one example of how this often plays out in the classroom. Because microinsults lack conscious intent and instead signal unconscious bias, those who engage in microinsults are often not receptive to being told that their behavior is racist and usually do not engage in sincere apologies for said behavior. The lack of acknowledgment that a microinsult is a racist act is a form of microinvalidation. Microinvalidations are ways in which the experiences of being a person of color are erased or denied by those attempting to either escape being designated as racist or of hoping to uphold the idea of a post-racist colorblind society. Together, these types of microaggressions can have a significant impact on the mental health and mental

11  SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS OF COLOR … 

203

stamina of individuals, especially when placed in an environment that is overwhelmingly white (Sue et al. 2007, 2019). The key to beginning to understand and identify microaggressions is in the word unintentional. Many perpetrators of microaggressions do not see themselves as racist. The mistake that many make is in the assumption that the intention to harm is required for these actions to be “real” racism. Racial microaggressions are often invisible to those who engage in them, and as such can be even more psychologically damaging to people of color than more overt acts of racism (Sue et al. 2007, p. 272). By reframing an accusation of racism as a case of the victim being too easily offended, those experiencing microaggressions feel gaslighted into questioning their own experience and feelings. The fewer other individuals of color in a space, the more pressure there is to not speak up. This is exacerbated when the perpetrators do not believe they have engaged in any wrongdoing, chalking their behavior up to a minor social faux pas that may be rude but not itself indicative of underlying racism. Yet, as Sue et al. (2019) explain, racial microaggressions are not the same as “everyday rudeness” because they are (a) constant and continual in the lives of people of color, (b) cumulative in nature and represent a lifelong burden of stress, (c) continuous ­reminders of the target group’s second-class status in society, and (d) symbolic of past governmental injustices directed toward people of color (enslavement of Black people, incarceration of Japanese Americans, and appropriating land from Native Americans). (p. 130)

Graduate students of color face microaggressions in different situations. First, they have to maneuver the white space of the university system as a student and may receive microaggressions from faculty, staff, and other fellow students. Additionally, for many graduate students of color funded through teaching fellowships, the undergraduate students they are teaching can bombard the instructor with microaggressions, most commonly in the denial of authority and expertise as a result of the perceived incompatibility of their identity with an authority figure on the topic they are teaching (Gomez et al. 2011). The cumulative effect of marginalization and microaggressions can be seen in the psychological phenomenon of stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is when “performance in a domain is hindered when individuals feel that a sociocultural group to which they belong is

204  B. R. BYRD

negatively stereotyped in that domain” (Shih et al. 1999, p. 80). In their seminal piece, Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson explain that negative stereotypes about groups to which one belongs can create a “socialpsychological predicament […] the existence of such a stereotype means that anything one does or any of one’s features that conform to it make the stereotype more plausible as a self-characterization in the eyes of others, and perhaps even in one’s own eyes” (1995, p. 797). The result is that in certain situations where one’s group is stereotyped to do poorly, the anxiety of performing well and refuting such stereotypes can ­actually impede the ability to perform the task well (Schmader et al. 2008; Inzlicht and Schmader 2012). Mary Murphy and Valerie Taylor (2012) describe how this psychological pressure results from what are called situational cues in the environment that in some way bring up a social identity and pass a value judgment on that identity. When someone notices situational cues that pass judgment on their own identity, they enter a vigilance process, where they become hyper-aware of their environment in anticipation of other cues that might further devalue their identity (Murphy and Taylor 2012, p. 19). This vigilance process in the face of situational cues can affect one’s physical as well as mental state. One study recorded faster heartbeats and sweatier palms, both indications of physiological distress, in female math, science, and engineering (MSE) majors after watching a promotional video for an MSE conference that showed predominantly male participants (compared to a group of female MSE majors who watched a video with a more balanced gender ratio). The same study also found that those who had watched the video with the unbalanced ­gender ratio reported afterwards less motivation to want to attend the conference as well as a feeling of not belonging to the field (Murphy et al. 2007). Thus, stereotype threat can have short-term consequences on academic performance and motivation, as well as longer-term effects on career paths and participation in events related to one’s chosen field. If a student perceives, even by way of lack of representation that a particular field of study would not welcome them, their anxiety increases and their motivation decreases. This can also lead to extra pressure to perform. Students may feel they have to contribute more to class discussions and outperform their peers to mitigate the perceived stereotypes others have about their identity group. They do not feel that they can ever just “get by” with the minimal effort, or ever have a day when they are not fully prepared, and that can lead directly to burnout and exhaustion.

11  SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS OF COLOR … 

205

While many of the marginalizing events and structures discussed above may seem outside of an individual faculty member’s control, there are strategies we can pursue in our capacity as instructors, mentors, researchers, and academic leaders to minimize these negative effects on students in our own programs. It is our responsibility to acknowledge that the reality of the graduate school experience is different for different students and meet the task of undoing centuries of racism and white supremacism embedded in the field head-on.

3  Mentoring for Success According to their literature review of research on mentoring students of color in academia, Brunsma et al. conclude that “good mentoring is one of the best indicators of graduate student success” (2017, p. 1). The following is a list of positive mentoring behaviors that we should aim for. a. Listen, acknowledge, create an action plan. When a graduate student comes to you with a conflict, be it with a class, a colleague, a student of theirs, etc., the most important thing to do is to make the graduate student feel heard and to validate their concerns. Listen, repeat back to them what you have understood, and then together plan a course of action. If a student approaches us with a complaint, we must take it seriously, as it most likely took a large amount of courage to approach us. Give them options with different degrees of involvement, such as having you speak to a colleague or fellow student without naming names, act as a mediator in a meeting with all parties, or coach the student on how to confront the other party in a respectful but firm manner that will result in constructive dialogue. The absolute worst thing to do in this situation is to dismiss the student’s concerns as an overreaction or being too sensitive—this is a microinvalidation, and can lead to further psychological distress for the student and a loss of trust in the ­faculty mentor. b. Foster community. In order to combat the psychologically damaging effects discussed above, the department and faculty mentors specifically need to foster community among graduate students. This can minimize the marginalization felt by not immediately “clicking” with others in the program who have similar backgrounds. Those experiencing stereotype threat are also looking for cues of belonging in their vigilance process, so cues from the environment such as images and symbols that reflect

206  B. R. BYRD

parts of their identity can signal acceptance and belonging (Murphy and Taylor 2012, p. 24). Mentors can lead students toward community-building activities, which can be as simple as meeting for a coffee once a month or attending and encouraging graduate students to take part in club events. As suggested by Rafael Granados and Juliana Lopez (1999), we should assign graduate student mentors to all incoming graduate students and give them tasks to complete together throughout the semester (observe each other teach and give feedback, share general reading lists for the degree, etc.). Having a student mentor who is more knowledgeable but in a similar level of power can ease the anxiety of asking questions about how to navigate the academic environment. c. Meet outside of class. The mentoring relationship must be nurtured outside of class as a supplement to classroom instruction. Especially for students continuing further into academia, the mentor must make transparent every aspect of the expectations placed on faculty, from service work to time management skills. To truly support students from underrepresented backgrounds, the mentor should not wait for students to come to office hours but rather take the responsibility to schedule meetings with mentees, with specific goals for each meeting (Brown et al. 1999). However, this does not mean that students should be forced into extracurricular events against their will. Allow students the space to turn down offers politely without the pressure to engage in socializing off campus. As discussed above, participating in a white space can be exhausting and students of color need downtime from attending to the expectations of others. We have to remember that while social functions with our colleagues may seem to facilitate building communities to those of similar backgrounds, the power difference involved in the attendees of such events exerts pressure to perform a specific social identity deemed acceptable to the predominantly white faculty. These events can further perpetuate feelings of exclusion from the situational cues of the environment and the players. d. Work together toward a common goal. According to Christopher Brown et al. (1999), good mentors do not just see themselves as providing a service, rather, they understand the reciprocal benefits of an intellectual exchange with someone outside the scholarship and traditions of the field. Good mentors do not view the relationship between mentor and mentee as hierarchical, nor do they view the flow of knowledge as unidirectional. Instead, they see mentees as collaborators and members

11  SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS OF COLOR … 

207

of a team. A good mentoring relationship would thus involve a joint project or paper where both members are equally contributing time and knowledge, even allowing the mentee the opportunity to be the project leader (Brown et al. 1999, pp. 107–8). e. Stop privileging one type of personal and educational experience. In the same vein as point (d) above, in order to truly work together, faculty must not restrict their mentoring to students who have similar backgrounds and interests. Faculty must be willing to leave their area of expertise and learn new things together with their mentees, or else the field itself cannot grow and expand to include new perspectives. As Brown et al. note, “the sad truth is that many faculty do not choose students who are different from themselves, because they view mentoring as a venue through which they can reproduce themselves” (Brown et al. 1999, pp. 109–10). This does not mean that there should not be some degree of overlap between research interests, or else the mentor might not be able to sufficiently support the student in their exploration. However, faculty must be willing to explore new topics or works outside of their traditional canon. f. Set realistic learning goals and regularly assess the program’s ability to meet those goals. Faculty must let go of idealized expectations of what a successful graduate looks like and realign their expectations according to more realistic goals. To do this, we must regularly assess the background knowledge with which students enter language classes and the knowledge with which they graduate. If there are gaps between what knowledge students have and what we would like them to have, we must hold ourselves, not the students, responsible for filling those gaps and making them relevant to the students’ interests. g. Identify and work to mitigate identity-threatening situational cues. Look at the types of artwork and promotional materials displayed around the department and in the spaces the graduate students will be occupying. Is there a diverse representation of identities or is it overwhelmingly white and male? Do you invite speakers of color to campus to give talks? Do you have a diverse faculty body? Some of these issues are easier to address than others. Yet, lack of representation has a palatable effect on the sense of belonging students of color will feel in these spaces. Work together with students and faculty of color to identify structural microaggressions, and then work with administration

208  B. R. BYRD

to change the physical and ideological landscape in ways that minimize exclusion and devaluing of the history and cultural identity of non-white peoples. h. Introduce students to other possible mentors and help ­facilitate that relationship but do not rely on faculty of color to mentor students of color. Brown et al. (1999) argue that although many may believe finding a faculty mentor of color is ideal for students of color, this thought process often leads to white faculty excusing themselves from the work of mentoring. While a faculty member of color may have a better grasp of how to navigate issues of individual and structural racism within academia, the burden of navigating those issues for others should not be placed on their shoulders. Additionally, to decide to not mentor a student of color because one is white is exclusionary and perpetuates racial divides within the field. Not only should white scholars be mentoring students of color but they should be doing the work of researching on their own which barriers exist in their field to people of color, be they for faculty or students. However, other studies suggest that connecting graduate students of color with faculty of color can be helpful for increasing feelings of belonging, discussing issues that they may feel uncomfortable discussing with white faculty, and seeing representation of someone like themselves in a faculty position. There can also be practical benefits, as Gay mentions: “Who better can tell an African American female where to go for hair-care services and products?” (2004, p. 270). In general, being able to connect to a community of people in the university system with similar backgrounds and experiences can combat some of the psychological effects of existing in a predominantly white space. Additionally, not all faculty make good mentors for all students or for all aspects of the student’s growth in graduate school. Students may need multiple mentors to fulfill all of their needs for success in their program and beyond. There is also no limit to the amount of time and extent that a graduate student can be mentored, and it does no harm to introduce your student to a larger support network, as long as you do not use it as an excuse to absolve yourself of the work of mentoring that student. Marilyn Haring (1999) warns that those introducing and facilitating mentoring relationships between students and faculty must take several things into consideration if we want to avoid the pitfalls of many previous well-intentioned but inherently flawed mentoring programs.

11  SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS OF COLOR … 

209

We must first define specifically the intent and expected outcomes of the mentoring relationship in a way that both the faculty and students understand and agree upon. Second, just as the language of “inclusion” frequently communicates a view that those in power should be lauded for making space for others, the language with which the mentoring relationship is described often assumes the same sort of paternalistic and hierarchical role of the mentor as “the one who has benefits to offer and ways that should be emulated” while the mentee “needs assistance due to weaknesses or deficits” (Haring 1999, p. 7). As mentioned above, good mentoring does away with this sort of model and instead views mentoring as an equal exchange where both parties are contributing and benefiting from the relationship. Two other related issues Haring mentions are that good relationships cannot be forced and that mentoring programs must be adequately funded and staffed for them to succeed. j. Train graduate students and faculty to recognize and challenge microaggressions in the classroom. Sarah Pearce (2019) recommends using the concept of microaggressions in teaching both white teachers and teachers of color how to identify and confront the small, often subtle instances of systemic racism that occur within their educational spaces. The first step for the instructors is to be able to identify microaggressions for what they are and understand the cumulative effect they have on the well-being of students and faculty of color within the university or school system. Pearce argues that having instructors understand that racism is not a “character flaw” but can instead be a part of an entire system of oppression and can manifest in subtle ways that are unintentional and yet still harmful is a key step to moving forward (2019, pp. 89–91). Yet the next crucial step is turning that understanding into action. Roleplaying exercises and sample scenarios of microaggressions in the classroom where teachers can brainstorm and discuss ways to interrupt and interrogate perpetrators of microaggression can lead instructors to feel more confident in addressing microaggressions in the classroom. There is no one simple solution on how to respond to microaggressions—each response would depend on the context of the situation and the people involved. Brainstorming and rehearsing empowers teachers to have at least a few responses ready when these situations do occur, rather than freezing and moving on as if nothing had been said. Training graduate student and faculty instructors to identify and respond appropriately to microaggressions can not only help graduate students of color but

210  B. R. BYRD

can help reduce microaggressions in the classroom for undergraduate students as well. We must also prepare graduate students for the microaggressions that they may receive in the form of comments on teaching evaluations and openly discuss ways of framing the purpose and audience of the teaching evaluations with their students before students fill them out (such as reminding students that the instructor is the main recipient of these comments, asking students to comment on specific activities they felt ­ were beneficial, having students perform midterm evaluations that force them to analyze their own progress and expectations for the course, etc.).

4  Conclusion As the research outlined above makes clear, mentoring graduate students of color requires engagement with the psychological reality of existing as a person of color in a predominantly white space. In order to better serve our students, we must educate ourselves on their experiences, while at the same time acknowledging the role that we have played and continue to play in upholding white supremacist power structures. We must take the work of dismantling these power structures seriously and take concrete steps to changing the landscape of German Studies as a field. We must also be vigilant in educating our colleagues in German Studies. It is not enough to simply not purposefully engage in overt racism—as a field, we must be actively anti-racist. There has been research widely accessible on increasing diversity through mentoring since at least the 1990s, yet faculty in German Studies have for the most part not undertaken any of these measures. Increasing diversity has not been made enough of a priority to cause action, so we have not been reading the research on this topic. In order to move forward, we need an action plan. We must challenge our colleagues to problematize our field’s role in perpetuating racist power structures. We must share the wealth of research on microaggressions with our colleagues and actively work to train everyone in our department on how to respond to microaggressions in the classroom. In every curriculum meeting, we must ask ourselves how the topics and authors chosen as the focus of our courses work to either uphold or dismantle white supremacy. In order for structural change to occur, there needs to be buy-in from the entire faculty and administration. We need time and funding for multiple workshops to articulate an anti-racist

11  SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS OF COLOR … 

211

curriculum throughout the undergraduate and graduate program. The conversation must continue with concrete steps to move forward and address issues or else no change will occur. It is not only our syllabus that needs to be decolonialized. We must decolonialize the field of German Studies as a whole. Acknowledgements   I thank Alyssa Reinhart for introducing me to the concept of Stereotype Threat many years ago, Bess Dawson and Andrew Byrd for their helpful comments and suggestions as this paper took shape, and Gabrielle Taylor, whose passion for knowledge and willingness to explore new topics with me expands my mind on the regular and inspires me to do better. I also want to thank Nicole Martin, Jackie Murray, DaMaris Hill, Jacqueline Couti, and H. Samy Alim both for their conversations throughout the years that opened my eyes to the struggles they have endured within academia, as well as for their patience with me as I work to decolonialize myself, my teaching, and my research.

References Ahmed, Sara. 2012. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press. Biswas, Shampa. 2019. “Advice on Advising: How to Mentor Minority Students.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 13, 2019. Accessed 1 April 2019. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Advice-onAdvising-How-to/245870. Brown, M. Christopher, Guy L. David, and Shederick A. McClendon. 1999. “Mentoring Graduate Students of Color: Myths, Models, and Modes.” Peabody Journal of Education 74 (2): 105–18. Brunsma, David L., David G. Embrick, and Jean H. Shin. 2017. “Graduate Students of Color: Race, Racism, and Mentoring in the White Waters of Academia.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 3 (1): 1–13. Esuruoso, Asoka. 2014. “A Historical Overview.” In Arriving in the Future: Stories of Home and Exile, edited by Asoka Esuruoso and Philipp Khabo Koepsell, 18–35. Berlin: epubli. Gay, Geneva. 2004. “Navigating Marginality en Route to the Professoriate: Graduate Students of Color Learning and Living in Academia.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 17 (2): 265–88. Gomez, Mary Louise, Ayesha Khurshid, Mel B. Freitag, and Amy Johnson Lachuk. 2011. “Microaggressions in Graduate Students’ Lives: How They Are Encountered and Their Consequences.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (8): 1189–99.

212  B. R. BYRD Granados, Rafael, and Juliana M. Lopez. 1999. “Student-Run Support Organizations for Underrepresented Graduate Students: Goals, Creation, Implementation, and Assessment.” Peabody Journal of Education 74 (2): 135–49. Haring, Marilyn J. 1999. “The Case for a Conceptual Base for Minority Mentoring Programs.” Peabody Journal of Education 74 (2): 5–14. Holling, Michelle A., Dreama G. Moon, and Alexandra Jackson Nevis. 2014. “Racist Violations and Racializing Apologia in a Post-Racism Era.” Journal of International & Intercultural Communication 7 (4): 260–86. Inzlicht, Michael, and Toni Schmader. 2012. Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Madley, Benjamin. 2005. “From Africa to Auschwitz: How German South West Africa Incubated Ideas and Methods Adopted and Developed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe.” European History Quarterly 35 (3): 429–64. Murphy, Mary C., Claude M. Steele, and James J. Gross. 2007. “Signaling Threat: How Situational Cues Affect Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Settings.” Psychological Science 18 (10): 879–85. Murphy, Mary C., and Valerie Jones Taylor. 2012. “The Role of Situational Cues in Signaling and Maintaining Stereotype Threat.” In Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application, edited by Toni Schmader, 17–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pearce, Sarah. 2019. “‘It Was the Small Things’: Using the Concept of Racial Microaggressions as a Tool for Talking to New Teachers About Racism.” Teaching and Teacher Education 79: 83–92. Pierce, Chester M., Jean V. Carew, Diane Pierce-Gonzalez, and Deborah Wills. 1977. “An Experiment in Racism.” Education and Urban Society 10 (1): 61–87. Sammartino, Annemarie. 2009. “After Brubaker: Citizenship in Modern Germany, 1848 to Today.” German History 27 (4): 583–99. Schmader, Toni, Michael Johns, and Chad Forbes. 2008. “An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat Effects on Performance.” Psychological Review 115 (2): 336–56. Shih, Margaret, Todd L. Pittinsky, and Nalini Ambady. 1999. “Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance.” Psychological Science 10 (1): 80–83. Steele, Claude M., and Joshua Aronson. 1995. “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (5): 797–11. Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha M.B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice.” American Psychologist 62 (4): 271–86.

11  SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS OF COLOR … 

213

Sue, Derald Wing, Sarah Alsaidi, Michael N. Awad, Elizabeth Glaeser, Cassandra Z. Calle, and Narolyn Mendez. 2019. “Disarming Racial Microaggressions: Microintervention Strategies for Targets, White Allies, and Bystanders.” American Psychologist 74 (1): 128–42. Torres, Lucas, Mark W. Driscoll, and Anthony L. Burrow. 2010. “Racial Microaggressions and Psychological Functioning among Highly Achieving African-Americans: A Mixed-Methods Approach.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 29 (10): 1074–99. Weber, Beverly. 2016. “Whiteness, WiG, and Talking About Race.” Women in German Yearbook 32: 189–202. Wise, Tim. 2008. Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections from an Angry White Male. New York: Soft Skull Press.

CHAPTER 12

Digital Media Network Projects: Classroom Inclusivity Through a Symphilosophical Approach Renata Fuchs

In the contemporary world, everything is touched by colonization. Efforts to marginalize non-white culture continue. In academia, we have a duty to resist treating whiteness as default and dismantle whiteness’ dominant paradigms. For me, the first step was to introduce neglected voices in my classes rather than adhere to the literary canon. I then considered how some of the principles, which guide my research, can be productive in thinking through diversity and decolonization in the classroom. In this article, I examine the process of merging my own literary research with a pedagogical approach-oriented toward classroom inclusivity. This approach actively seeks to integrate the perspectives and attend to the learning needs of all students in my courses regardless of their gender, age, race, disability, and sexual orientation through a peer-like environment that includes the instructor.

R. Fuchs (*)  Department of Germanic Languages, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_12

215

216  R. FUCHS

Considering the feminist pedagogy of inclusion as means of bringing critical thinking and creativity into the classroom, I assign digital media network projects, specifically those relying on social media and digital humanities, and use networking aesthetics1 to analyze students’ dialogical interactions, a two- or multiple-way reciprocal communication using verbal speech, written language, or other products that serve to communicate messages. I evaluate how this kind of communication is rooted in the Romantic theories of sociability and symphilosophy. The term “sociability” describes the atmosphere engendered in social-intellectual gatherings such as those in salons, mainly during the Romantic period. The theory and practice of sociability complemented Romantic individualism, as intersubjectivity, exchange with others, was one of the anticipated preconditions for Romantic identity development. Hence symphilosophy was the ideal form of work for a group of friends and like-minded artists whose writing and conversation was so intertwined that any unequivocal individuation was virtually unfeasible. One can imagine an intense intellectual discussion with a good friend, in which ideas move back and forth, being fashioned, molded and refined, merged and interlocked, corrected and expanded, until one could not honestly say where precisely one’s contribution ended and the other’s contribution began. The use of these core concepts of the European literary tradition lends itself to a decolonialization of literature and language courses and the discipline at large in conjunction with feminist ideals because they prioritized post-colonialism and postmodernism and brought into focus theories of intersectionality. The changes in German Studies within the past five decades reflect the strong impact of feminist philosophy; yet, the necessity to reinvigorate and renew pedagogical approaches to teaching German language and culture still exists and must include the consideration of diversity in terms of gender, class, ethnicity, race, age, and sexuality. I believe that German Romantic philosophy—with its openness to dialogue, emancipation of women, and acculturation of Jews in the Romantic salon—and

1 I use the term “networking aesthetics” in a much broader way than Anne Fuchs, who coined the phrase “Vernetzungsästhetik,” in attempt to describe network analysis as an epistemological technique to access the minute details in W.G. Sebald’s work. Fuchs suggests that Sebald uses coincidence as an organizing principle for writing history against the grain in that he entwines old untold, personal stories and thus purposefully connects seemingly unrelated experiences and events to form an act of remembrance that counteracts the domineering logic of history.

12  DIGITAL MEDIA NETWORK PROJECTS … 

217

its extension, the letter, are relevant to these pedagogical objectives regarding diversity and can be successfully applied in digital and social media projects. The Romantic salon can be then perceived as a decolonizing space albeit as a different type of decolonization.

1  The Importance of Feminist Pedagogy and Diversity It has been more than twenty years since Ingeborg Henderson published “Addressing Diversity: A Call for Action,” the plea for diversity in German departments in various parts of the United States, and the same number of years since Susan Feiner’s and Barbara Morgan’s work alerted to exclusion of race and gender in textbooks (Henderson 1991). Henderson was hopeful that textbook writers as well as publishers would start to “think diversity” and, in the meantime, instructors would concentrate on supplementing primary texts by collecting and creating their own teaching materials in such a way that would reflect our multicultural society (Feiner and Morgan 1990, p. 5). Feiner, in turn, prompted inclusion with her critical thinking approach model spotlighting active student-centered pedagogies (Feiner and Roberts 1995). These new ideas would not have been possible without the feminist movement, which had an impact on teaching German Studies and which influenced academia in general. Scholars and the media reference at least four waves of feminism. While the first wave emerged in the nineteenth century and primarily focused on equality for Caucasian middle-class women in terms of women’s equal rights in education and on suffrage, the second wave, in the 1960s through the 1990s, added a radical voice to issues concerning sexuality, work, and politics and drew in women of color and women from developing nations who were seeking sisterhood and solidarity (Rampton 2015). The third wave incorporated ideas of post-colonialism and postmodernism and expanded with theories of intersectionality prompted by the growing need to include diversity of class, ethnicity, race, and sexuality into activists’ demands. The changes in German Studies and pedagogical approaches to teaching German language and culture within the past five decades reflect the strong impact that these feminist waves have had on the profession.2 Such changes have 2 For various theoretical and practical approaches see Scott Denham, Irene Kacandes, and Jonathan Petropoulos, eds. (2000). A User’s Guide to German Cultural Studies.

218  R. FUCHS

manifested themselves in a variety of ways, including: attempting to create non-hierarchical, student-centered classrooms; locating sites of sexism in language; critiquing images of women in literature, textbooks, and media; incorporating texts by women and previously underrepresented groups into the curriculum; developing critical inquiry into the relationship between sexuality, class, ethnicity, and race; and examining the concerns of the LGBTQIA community. However, the emerging fourth wavers are not, in the words of Martha Rampton, “just reincarnations of their second wave grandmothers” (Rampton Website, n.p.); they strive for an intersectionality within which feminism is part of a larger consciousness of oppression along with racism, ageism, sexual orientation, ableism, and classism. The importance of this newest wave is its focus on inclusivity: intersectionality attends to identity for all humans, regardless of race, age, gender, sexuality, abilities, or economic status. It is an all-encompassing inclusivity in the fight for equality. This means that as pedagogues we need to work against biases that reflect the gender and race blindness and not only result in the portrayal of minorities and women in stereotypical ways but also depict their socioeconomic experiences as anomalous and deviant. The new ideas of intersectional feminism introduce perspectives that are different from the normative way of looking at the world by avoiding Eurocentric viewpoints. They attempt to de-center the traditions of the oppressor and focus on alternative models for knowledge production and analysis not grounded in post-Enlightenment European thought. I, however, claim that sociability and symphilosophy—the core concepts of the German Romantic literary tradition—are consequential for a successful decolonialization of the German curriculum. While valuing subjective experience and introspection, early German Romantics also appreciated and benefitted from dialogical networks that included society members from different class, genders, and religious backgrounds. On a scale never seen before, they gave women (not only white women of aristocratic background) freedom of expression in discourse and action, while proposing to maximize mutual understanding. The Romantic theory of sociability and symphilosophy does not minimize opposing voices but rather engages with them productively. Thus, the discourse of Romantic writers offers a mode of resistance to hegemony with radical potential that helps facilitate decolonial thinking and inclusion.

12  DIGITAL MEDIA NETWORK PROJECTS … 

219

2  Romantic Theories of Sociability and Symphilosophy I see the relevance for classroom work in German Romantic philosophy because aspects of it reflect feminist pedagogical objectives. Of particular relevance is the form of the open dialogue, which fosters diversity and inclusivity. The dialogue form was one of the aesthetic methods prized by the early Romantics. Friedrich Schlegel (1772–1829), the leading philosopher of German Romanticism, provided a model for the Romantic mode of discourse that fused philosophy and poetry in an attempt to make them lively and sociable and to poeticize life and society. He insisted on the social nature of poetry that befriends and binds the hearts of all those who love it. The interplay between communication and interaction with others is the force of life, expansive poetry (Kneller 2014, p. 115). The philosopher Schlegel and the poet Novalis (1772–1801) referred to their own collaboration as symphilosophizing. Essentially early German Romanticism practiced the art of reciprocal communication among a group which, at its time, was surprisingly diverse in terms of class, ethnicity, and gender. Philosophical conversations took place in the salons of Berlin attended by not only male writers, artists, and politicians but most notably also by women and Jews, as well as in equally diverse meetings in the home of August and Carolina Schlegel, Friedrich Schlegel’s brother and sister-in-law, in Jena. From the beginning, the early German Romantics were drawn to the problems and potential of aesthetic reflective dialogue. Affected by social changes around them and abroad (the formation of the new middle class as well as new political and cultural movements like liberalism influenced by the experience of the French Revolution), they felt the need to share social responsibility and to include the cultural and aesthetic claims of individuals from different social and historical backgrounds. As a rule, women were not admitted into literary or political associations (the exceptions were very few, for instance, the Literary Society in Stockholm or the English Society of Christian Knowledge) and were excluded from institutions of bourgeois public sphere, such as coffee houses, educational societies, Masonic lodges and clubs, table groups and artistic and professional associations (Ockenfuß 1992, pp. 23–72). Salons were gathering spaces for sociability that not only welcomed women but

220  R. FUCHS

where cultural forces drew established male public figures and marginalized female writers together within a progressive space, a dialogical world where communication networks became alive and gained power. The houses of the Jewish salonnières furnished a space of sociability for connection among those associated with different classes; hence, the early salon mélange resulted in a high percentage of intermarriage across different ethnicities, classes, religions, and generations (a new pattern was established where older women would marry much younger men) because the women rebelled against their still restrictive faith and the system of arranged marriages. Through the feminine finesse of personal friendship, dialogue, and self-proclamation, the salonnières confronted the limitations of the prevailing thought of both majority and minority. The various discourses in the salon worked toward maximizing mutual understanding without minimizing differences. The attendees addressed the problem of how subjective experience and the inner life of the individual can manifest itself and how a society or social group with members from different vocations, religious backgrounds, and genders can find common ground through free self-expression. For Rahel Levin Varnhagen, the founder of the most popular salon in Berlin, being free meant also being true to yourself, and being able to articulate your thoughts without compromise, that is, even to the point of being ruthless because “die ganze Wahrheit” (the whole truth) was at stake; hence, she was admired for this kind of reciprocal “Mitteilung der Wahrheit” (disclosure of truth) that produced many followers and admirers (Strube 1992, p. 120). The echo of Kantian thought resounds Levin Varnhagen’s logistics of dialogue, which was permeated with the desire for freedom to be able to think rationally and independently. Freedom should bring mankind to reason, which in turn should lead everyone to the truth. Having grown up in a household which promulgated the ideals of the Enlightenment, Levin Varnhagen recognized that all human beings possessed the ability to be emancipated. In other words, humans are equal by nature and are part of a universal community; consequently, differences among people are less important than their fundamental sameness. This was the conviction that drove the spirit of her salon since she required that all her guests recognize her guiding principle and agree to it. She even dared Prince Louis of Prussia to widen his circle of acquaintances beyond those baptized. Levin Varnhagen’s letters reflect the diversity of her salon, as she corresponded with famous aristocrats and her unknown cook; with influential

12  DIGITAL MEDIA NETWORK PROJECTS … 

221

politicians and unestablished writers; with actresses and philosophers; with acculturated emancipated Jewish women and young gentile intellectuals. She was in contact with more than three hundred people and her archive consists of some six thousand letters. Thus, the sociable Romantic society can be described as an assemblage of individuals whose sole purpose in gathering was to discover their social capacity or humanity and to further its free, reciprocal dialogue. Their only purpose was to create a society as an expression of the union of their multiple individualities. All members articulated their opinions in their own manner without emphasizing their professional standing, their class, and family standing.

3  Incorporating My Research on Romanticism into Pedagogy The sociable Romantic society with its theoretical and practical approaches to open dialogue, diversity, and inclusivity is then quite relevant to curricular decolonization. I claim that Romantic letter dialogues, which were the continuation of salon conversations, are operative in our social media and in digital projects as networks of communication. This new form of the letter revives and revises a Romantic view of culture and human experience. I interpret electronic interactions among students learning German language and literature as a living legacy of Romanticism with its critical, multinational, multicultural, and multilingual impulses as dependent on Romantic theories, themes, and convictions that emerged in the Jena circle in the 1790s. Social media and digital humanities projects allow for multinational, multicultural, and at times multilingual perspectives to be brought into the extended classroom. A vital element of Romantic philosophy reflected in this new classroom is the fragmentary character of work, which is in and of itself a Romantic postulate as voiced by Friedrich Schlegel in his “Athenaeum Fragments.” The fragment in space and time, the interrelation between fragmentary thinking and philosophical thought, and the fragmentation of language and the lyric voice are all postmodern symptoms well established in the philosophy of Romanticism (Beiser 2003, p. 4).3 3 Since 1990 the consensus has been building that Early German Romanticism was not only a literary but also a philosophical movement, and a number of literary scholars (Paul de Man, Azade Seyhan, Alice Kuzniar, Phillipe Lacoue-Labarthe, Jean-Luc Nancy, Manfred

222  R. FUCHS

The open-ended and collaborative features characterize the salon and symphilosophy. Romantic salons—democratic spaces composed of members of the aristocracy and middle classes as well as Jewish intellectuals— were led by women and were informed by the principle of sociability; the principle that could be realized only through communication and collaboration with others. Similar to the salons that afforded intellectuals not merely a physical space but a community and a forum for social and intellectual life, where discussions on literature, art and politics took place, the virtual spaces where students interact while working on various projects can be perceived through yet another component of Romantic theory, namely, the arabesque. From 1795 onwards, the arabesque became the explicit centerpiece of Romantic poetics and literature, and the Romantic theory on the literary arabesque emphasized its adherence to the genuine Romantic project of genre theory in the context of universal poetry, where various genres are intertwined in one literary work (Menninghaus 2000, p. 29). The extended classroom discourse then reflects back to both discourses on the arabesque in literature, architecture, and in the fine arts and multiplies itself through a puzzling play exhibiting elements of beauty, eroticism, and mortality. In recent years, there has been an interest in seeing various aspects of the digital world as the new form of Romanticism. To that end, for instance, Tim Leverecht explored virtual reality and ushering in a New Romantic Era; Margie Borschke examined the New Romantics as well as authenticity and authorship online (Borschke 2014); and Paddy Johnson considered digital artists as the twenty-first century’s New Romantics (Johnson 2014). Digital media networks enable interaction and can help students to coordinate, communicate, and collaborate on various projects—characteristics that remind us of sociability and symphilosophy as well as of feminist pedagogy. Through open dialogue and conversation, an operative feminist pedagogy allows students to compare, contrast, and connect their views and ideas with those of others toward a goal of achieving a greater understanding of the subject. The result of this process is that students are actively engaged in the production of knowledge, as opposed to being the passive recipients of teacher-imparted “truth” (Shackelford 1999, p. 21).

Frank, and Isaiah Berlin) established that Early German Romanticism had affinities with postmodern concerns. See Frederick C. Beiser’s (2003). The Romantic Imperative: The Concept of Early German Romanticism.

12  DIGITAL MEDIA NETWORK PROJECTS … 

223

Decolonizing the curriculum requires a framework for altering the way people learn. Curricula need to be formulated according to students’ learning needs so that they would be able to analyze, recognize, and transform the given societal conditions and be helped to acquire informed political meaning and make optimal political judgment (BarongoMuweke 2016, p. 231). Essentially, decolonial education would promote critical thinking by supplying instructors and learners with adequate competencies for analyzing societal change (post-colonialism, globalization, capitalism, patriarchy, and transnationalism). Instructors’ knowledge and analytical competencies for challenging difference and inequality in various forms would be a deconstructing force for overcoming internalized “tribalism,” power, privilege, selectivity, dominance, hierarchization, prejudice, belligerence, of ethnicity, and poverty (Barongo-Muweke 2016, p. 231). The first step is decolonizing the curriculum, so as to enable those who study now to develop an understanding of societal difference and diversity, and thus opening up a dialogue. This plea for furthering free reciprocal dialogue has been expressly or impliedly voiced by many scholars—including the aforementioned study by Feiner, who problematized inclusion of race and gender in textbooks and suggested using materials that allow students to analyze, synthesize, and explore ways of discovering. Finer and Roberts also articulated the need for intercultural competence, diversity, and multicultural perspectives as tools to combat exclusion. Only such understanding can lead to fully implementing the theories of intersectionality. An operative feminist pedagogy then needs to be necessarily embedded in academia, and, once again, there are such operative elements in the German Romantic movement. According to Theodore Ziolkowski, the “Jena mode of discourse” anchored among the circle of Romantic philosopher poets was indebted to new “discourse of the academy” (the authentic scholarly communication led by a succession of professors at the University of Jena) (1990, pp. 252–268). Early German Romanticism is thus to be distinguished from other “romanticisms” by its use of academic genres such as the lecture, the persuasive public speech, and the dialogue, that is, the modes of discourse akin to symphilosophyzing that most of the time took place in the lecture hall and the seminar room (Kneller 2014, p. 12). To be sure at that time the discourse of the academy was largely undertaken by white upperclass men; yet, there were vigorous attempts to change that pattern (which should be not underestimated), as Rahel Levin Varnhagen and other women participated in philosophical lectures at that time, for instance in a series of lectures given by August Wilhelm Schlegel in Berlin in 1802.

224  R. FUCHS

4  Facebook Project Now, how do we arrive from the aforementioned feminist pedagogy and the Romantic theories of sociability and symphilosophy at social media, specifically Facebook, and digital humanities projects? The answer is pretty straightforward: by approaching the subject through new methodological lenses that include social network analysis, social media, digital humanities scholarship and ultimately through the reimagining of the traditional salon space as a virtual salon space on Facebook. Imagining the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century world as a networked community connects to a recent interest in novel forms of social interaction facilitated by new social media like Internet forums, weblogs, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other types of social networking sites. The shift toward the increased involvement of computer technology in pedagogical settings also manifests the increasing involvement of academic communities in digital humanities projects that use new technologies to analyze data embedded in literary texts, or to map out patterns of intellectual exchange. One major study of eighteenth-century social networks, which maps the Republic of Letters (the long-distance intellectual community of scholars that fostered communication among the intellectuals during the Enlightenment), started in 2008 as a collaboration of a group of Stanford scholars with an expanding network of international colleagues. This initiative showed how such networks enabled a transnational circulation of ideas, people, and epistolary networks, charting the movement of intellectuals and between salons (Baird 2014, p. 12). From the perspective of social network analysis with its breakthrough in the 1970s, when Stanley Milgram first formulated “the small world problem,” we know that any two people, no matter how remote from each other, could be linked by a mean number of intermediaries somehow greater than five (Baird 2014, p. 8). It goes to show that “the small world problem” is not truly a problem when we consider the importance of circulation of ideas and generation of a communication net. From the pedagogical standpoint we can use these analyses when designing learning activities. Any group of students may be regarded, for the purposes of this particular research on Romantic sociability, as salon participants in a virtual salon space on Facebook. The salon and Facebook connection is not so far flung as it may seem. Facebook, after all, emerged partly

12  DIGITAL MEDIA NETWORK PROJECTS … 

225

from Mark Zuckerberg’s interaction with members of one of Harvard’s elite “final clubs,” founded in 1790s (Jarvis 2014, p. 31). Most importantly, however, Facebook never defaults to either the network (macro) or the individual user (micro) but rather exists in the mutual interactions between voluntary participants and the whole (Jarvis 2014, p. 32), which gives it an appearance of the salon. The possibilities of using Facebook in an academic setting were tested in a Facebook group that David Palumbo-Liu and Wai Chee Dimock set up as a forum on World Literature in 2009. Many of the early members came from Stanford and Yale; however, the group expanded to include members from over a hundred institutions domestic and foreign, including several high schools. The project became a “community at a distance” with diverse membership, with no home base and no fixed borders.4 As one of the definite benefits of a literature Facebook group, Dimock lists the fact that it is completely free of charge and without the burden of an established structure due to the fact that there is no institutional home and, for most of its members, there are no face-to-face meetings. Consequently, graduate students appear less identifiable, less defined, than they might be in the classroom or under the rubric of the graduate program. They may emerge to be authorities on subjects that their professors are only vaguely familiar with (Dimock 2011, p. 732). This is in fact the setting of inclusion featuring a critical thinking model that spotlights active student-centered pedagogies initiated by Feiner. In designing my own Facebook groups—one for my German language class and the second one for my German literature in translation class—I took into consideration first and foremost feminist pedagogy, including its standards for successful assignment design. Assignments focus on discovery, encourage students to use their personal experience, and emphasize critical thinking. In that respect, the Facebook space is assignment-centered rather than lecture-centered, and personal knowledge along with digression become a source of creativity and insight. Dialogue allows students to explore the language and argument at the same time as it prompts students to create knowledge as part 4 The current group on Facebook is called “Rethinking World Literature” and has over eleven thousand members who contribute on wide range of topics and discuss the newest trends in and approaches to literature in a way that is not Eurocentric, but rather encompasses truly all world literatures of many different epochs including also contemporary works.

226  R. FUCHS

of an emerging community of learners. Short writing assignments play an essential role in encouraging both student learning and the exploration of ideas. Collaboration and peer review of this writing encourage students to become responsible not only for themselves but to one another. Such exercises foster a sense of community through interaction and promote the pursuit of knowledge because they empower students to seek answers beyond texts or lectures. These exercises prompt students to reconstruct questions, thereby fostering lifelong learning attitudes and skills. This active learning process is central to critical thinking and creativity (Shackelford 1999, p. 24). All those key features of classroom work on Facebook reflect feminist pedagogy in that they evoke the atmosphere of sociability generated in social-intellectual gatherings, a process which also resembles the aims and structure of early nineteenth-century salons. They rely on the ideal form of group work, symphilosophy, when writing and conversation are so intertwined that any unequivocal individuation is virtually unfeasible since the ideas move back and forth, being fashioned and refined, merged and interlocked, corrected and expanded. The final product (in many instances) of any such discussions would have incorporated different ideas coming from different individuals as one final idea. Similar to the salon setting, the discussion board is designed to promote an unhurried set of exchanges and to give equal weight to each participant. It allows several threads of conversation to proceed simultaneously and makes each viewer scroll through the entire thread before arriving at the most recent entry. Salon conversations were extended to letter dialogues, which were explicitly understood as both a prolongation of conversations carried out in the group as a whole as well as unconstrained and authentic, and, therefore, an exceptionally preferable form of literary expression (Murray 2014, p. 283). On Facebook, discussions may be carried on in present time but there is also an archiving mechanism at work since every discussion thread will always be on record as digital memory. Each point can be revisited later (with the caveat that some posts might be removed depending on the intention of the author) and influenced by new circumstances that refocus the debate. Hence, there is no seal of finality but rather the writing remains fragmentary and points to one of the favored forms of writing in the Romantic era: the fragment. The two-way pedagogy of Facebook learning encompasses the idea that students learn through conversation as they are being instructed. This multidirectionality in learning happens when education is removed from its customary setting and unfolds in a space different from the

12  DIGITAL MEDIA NETWORK PROJECTS … 

227

classroom. Sociability, in the context of the online forum, is based on reciprocal contribution, individual diversity, and respect for difference (Gjesdal 2014, p. 104). Just like in the salon, students can form unique friendships firmly rooted in interaction and reciprocity (Wechselwirkung) since they are no longer in the public sphere but rather that of the salon, that is, in the semi-public sphere where the environment provides an enhanced propensity for dialogue and various topics that go beyond what might be discussed in the traditional classroom setting. Dialogues facilitate familiarity among interlocutors. Rahel Levin Varnhagen encouraged letter writing for this same reason. Those whom she encountered for the first time were specifically embolden to correspond with her. This type of engagement conforms to the ideas of decolonization through intersectional feminism. A Facebook group gives students a virtual yet tangible community where they can associate with those who have similar interests even beyond the assignment at hand and thus exchange ideas and progress together. In fact, I always emphasize the importance of exploring different topics through connecting ideas, not necessarily immediately related to the assigned topics, or approaching assignments through students’ personal experiences. Students are encouraged not only to participate in discussions with others but also to initiate their own topic threads, enabling them to emphasize their particular interests and allowing for diversity. A hybrid course offers a good alternative to the traditional classroom setup because it has the capacity to bring together insights about and to articulate the connection among the written word, picture, and sound in an online group setting. The Facebook discussion stimulates students’ interests. Students find outside-of-classroom instruction and interactions less monotonous and ultimately write more than in a classroom setting, because they do not consider it drudgery. At least one reason for this is the fact that the Facebook space is associated with leisure and not work. While fostering symphilosophy, this approach seeks to reconstruct the relationship of the individual and society as proposed by decolonization methodologies with their central focus on feminist pedagogy and intersectionality.

5  Digital Humanities Project If we look ahead, once again, from the Romantic era to the present time, we will see that Digital Humanities (DH) is also a social undertaking resembling Romantic symphilosophy. DH, as a field, is conceived

228  R. FUCHS

as a constellation network of people who have been working together, collaborating, sharing research, and debating ideas. It is the long association between computers and composition; it is the widespread means to implement electronic archives and editions; it is a belle-lettristic project around hypertext and other forms of electronic literature; it is the openness to cultural studies; it is the simultaneous explosion of interest in e-reading with scholars like Franco Moretti (2013) taking up data mining and visualization to perform distance readings. Digital projects contribute to “decolonizing the mind” through a linguistic and cultural phenomenon as it is a process that is equally driven by and reflected in the fields of literature and thought as it is political and legislative (Forsdick 2017, p. 3). The idea of decolonizing the mind in this particular way can be found in the essay “Le colonialisme est un système” (The Colonialism is a System) by Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most significant French metropolitan contributors to anti-colonial thinking in the Francophone world. In this essay, published in the early years of the Algerian War of Independence, he outlines an agenda involving the intellectual decolonization of both France and its former colonies: “The only thing we can and must try—but today it is the main one— is to struggle […] to free simultaneously the Algerians and the French from colonial tyranny” (Sartre 1964, p. 48). For Sartre, this political project was inextricably linked to his concept of literature committed to cultural manifestations of the end of the empire (Forsdick 2017, p. 3). Literary digital projects thus have the power to decolonize the mind. WorldLiterature@UCLA is a digital humanities project venue (featuring German literature projects) that brings together a scholarly team consisting of faculty and students who engage with the content and methodology of various disciplines to uncover the multilayered conceptual history of world literature and to explore the value of network mapping for humanities research and teaching. Its aim is to document Goethe’s intellectual network of writers and thinkers, as well as to map out a translational grid of Die Leiden des jungen Werthers in different languages.5 One of the projects at WorldLiterature@UCLA specifically models Goethe’s intellectual relationships with other scholars and writers across time and space.6 Intellectual relationships, in this case, are

5 Kim, 6 Kim,

David D. Deutsch 170. Goethe und Weltliteratur (syllabus). David D. Deutsch 170. Goethe und Weltliteratur (syllabus).

12  DIGITAL MEDIA NETWORK PROJECTS … 

229

defined as moments of exchange, dissemination, adoption, adaptation, and criticism of Goethe’s ideas and works. These manifold associations are represented in Project 1, Goethe’s Correspondence Network, as a nodal network since the visualization offers an idiosyncratic view of the extensive transfer of knowledge around Goethe and the central role his conception of world literature (Weltliteratur) plays in this intellectual exchange. The project displays a world fair of ideas, where concepts, explanations, impressions, approaches, and perspectives are circulated across time and space. WorldLiterature@UCLA generates “network narratives” that present complex relationships between subjects, objects, or concepts without generating totalizing pictures and requires the involvement of many languages and fields. The project carries decolonizing power as it seeks to uncover personal and professional relations of one of the most influential European writers with a decolonizing mind and ideas. The aim of this collaborative digital project is to examine the concept of world literature, popularized since the beginning of the nineteenth century by Goethe, and to explore ways in which texts are translated across cultures, languages, and nations as exemplars of world literature. Hence it visualizes transnational networks of authors, translators, and scholars. The connection between social networks and critical thought informs how WorldLiterature@UCLA uses big data visualization as a constructive mode of humanistic inquiry. The goal is to perfect digital tools in order to enhance research and teaching in German Studies. Both methodology and pedagogy involve project design, engage and expect multimodal literacy, and facilitate experimentation with collaborative learning characterized by interactive iteration. For the project involving Goethe’s intellectual network, my students were required to use digital databases and find at least five people who were biographically or intellectually connected to Goethe. These people were not to be present in the database already. In the next step, the students needed to add information about these five individuals to the WorldLiterature@UCLA database and describe their relationship to Goethe. The connecting project built upon the existing network collaboratively, verbally, and visually.7 Taking into consideration that the

7 Renata Fuchs, German 158: Introduction to Study of German Literature and Culture (syllabus).

230  R. FUCHS

emblematic German writer Goethe was discovered and promoted by salon hostesses, most prominently by Rahel Levin Varnhagen, and that the salon was the center of intellectual life extended through letters, the project focused on letter exchange. Each student chose an author and researched the author’s letter network. The goal was to find out with whom the authors corresponded and write a short biographical entry for each of the five letter recipients/senders who are of historical, literary, and/or cultural significance. Another aspect of the project was to situate the authors and their literary/private letter networks historically and culturally. To that end, the students concentrated on urbanism in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and beyond as they mapped out localities to and from which the letters were sent as well as cultural sites (museums, libraries, streets, parks) connected to or named after the authors. The students mapped out digitally the cultural reception of the literary figures in question. I would like to emphasize the importance of collaborative experimentation for digital humanities scholarship regardless of its inherently risky and open-ended nature. My projects modulate necessary traditional humanities practices and evoke symphilosophy of Romantic salons— democratic spaces—informed by the principle of sociability. This principle could be realized only through communication and collaboration with others. Just like the Romantic salon, a decolonizing space, digital network projects are beneficial for students as they provide a unique environment for subjective and collective development while practicing the contemporary form of sociability.

References Baird, Ileana. 2014. Social Networks in the Long Eighteenth Century: Clubs, Literary Salons, Textual Coteries. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars. Barongo-Muweke, Norah. 2016. Decolonizing Education: Towards Reconstructing a Theory of Citizenship Education for Postcolonial Africa. Wiesbaden: Springer. Beiser, Frederick C. 2003. The Romantic Imperative: The Concept of Early German Romanticism. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Borschke, Margie. 2014. “The New Romantics: Authenticity, Participation, and the Aesthetics of Piracy.” First Monday 19 (10). Accessed 9 August 2018. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5549/4128.

12  DIGITAL MEDIA NETWORK PROJECTS … 

231

Dimock, Wai Chee. 2011. “The Changing Profession: World Literature on Facebook.” PMLA 126: 730–36. Feiner, Susan, and Barbara A. Morgan. 1990. “Women and Minorities in Introductory Economics Textbooks: 1974 to 1984.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 18 (3/4): 46–67. Feiner, Susan, and Bruce Roberts. 1995. “Using Alternative Paradigms to Teach About Race and Gender: A Critical Thinking Approach to Introductory Economics.” The American Economic Review 85 (2): 46–67. Forsdick, Charles. 2017. “Literature and Decolonization.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Ends of Empire, edited by Martin Thomas and Andrew Thompson, n.p. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gjesdal, Kristin. 2014. “Hermeneutics, Individuality, and Tradition. Schleiermacher’s Idea of Bildung in the Landscape of Hegelian Thought.” In The Relevance of Romanticism: Essays on German Romantic Philosophy, edited by Dalia Nassar, 92–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henderson, Ingeborg. 1991. “Addressing Diversity: A Call for Action.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 24 (1): 4–9. Jarvis, J. Ereck. 2014. “Chapter One. Green Ribband Width: The Broken Metaphors of New Social Forms, C. 1680 and C. 2013.” In Social Networks in the Long Eighteenth Century: Clubs, Literary Salons, Textual Coteries, edited by Ileana Baird, 32–53. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Johnson, Paddy. 2014. “Are Digital Artists Really the 21st Century’s New Romantics? Eyebeam Tracks the 19th-Century Themes in New Media Art.” Artnet News. April 23. Accessed 9 August 2018. https://news.artnet.com/ exhibitions/are-digital-artists-really-the-21st-centurys-new-romantics-11528. Kneller, Jane. 2014. “Sociability and the Conduct of Philosophy: What We Can Learn from Early German Romanticism.” In The Relevance of Romanticism: Essays on German Romantic Philosophy, edited by Dalia Nassar, 110–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Menninghaus, Winfried. 2000. “Beauties; and the Romantic Arabesque.” In Rereading Romanticism, edited by Martha B. Helfer, 27–46. Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi. Moretti, Franco. 2013. Distant Reading. London: Verso. Murray, Christopher John, ed. 2014. Encyclopedia of Romantic Era, 1760–1850, II. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. Ockenfuß, Solveig. 1992. Bettine von Arnims Briefroman: literarische Erinnerungsarbeit: literarische Erinnerungsarbeit zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Frankfurt: Opladen. Rampton, Martha. 2015. “Four Waves of Feminism.” Pacific University. Accessed 23 March 2018. https://www.pacificu.edu/about/media/fourwaves-feminism.

232  R. FUCHS Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1964. “Le colonialisme est un système.” In Situations V, 25–48. Paris: Gallimard. Shackelford, Jean. 1999. “A Means for Bringing Critical Thinking and Creativity to the Economics Classroom.” In Valuing Us All: Feminist Pedagogy and Economics, edited by April Laskey Aerni and Kim Marie Mc Goldrick, 19–29. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Strube, Rolf, ed. 1992. “Sie saßen und tranken am Teetisch” Anfänge und Blütezeit der Berliner Salons 1789–1871. Munich: Piper. Ziolkowski, Theodore. 1990. German Romanticism and Its Institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

CHAPTER 13

Disrupting the Norm: Disability, Access, and Inclusion in the German Language Classroom Petra Watzke

A while ago, I conducted an informal poll among fellow postsecondary educators of German at US universities and colleges. In a private Facebook group, I asked whether the topic of disability in the classroom was addressed in any way during the pedagogy training they received as graduate students. Of twelve responders, only one person said that they received such information, specifically about on-campus disability services. The others all reported that they received no training or information on this topic during their pedagogy instruction. Most of them expressed dismay about this lack of training. Although the small number of responders and its informal nature do not make my poll representative, they nonetheless point to systemic shortcomings in graduate-level German language pedagogical training and instructional materials. The general scarcity of research into disability in the classroom and in the pedagogy training of graduate students corroborates my informal finding. Beyond the existing reliable research that I cite throughout this

P. Watzke (*)  Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_13

233

234  P. WATZKE

chapter, this topic has been generally neglected. With this chapter, I thus intend to further a discussion of disability in higher education. Disability in the German language classroom poses an often unacknowledged challenge to many postsecondary educators. All too often, neither language pedagogy training nor textbooks anticipate the needs of students with varying abilities and do not necessarily prioritize accommodation, access, and inclusion. Instead, both textbooks and training often support a socially constructed image of normalcy without acknowledging the breadth of experiences, abilities, and identities that both students and educators bring to the classroom. A monolithic teaching approach informed by a latent and pervasive belief in such a narrow concept of normalcy is detrimental to the entire classroom community. As Rick Godden and Ann-Marie Womack (2016) observe, “Seeing a student body as an undifferentiated group leads to strict rules and single solutions.” Such unreflected “one size fits all” tendencies in pedagogy training and textbook design expose the everyday ableism at the core of our societies and ultimately inform our classroom work. This chapter proposes an intervention into such undifferentiation currently at play in German language pedagogy. It examines how prioritizing the needs of disabled students at the stages of curriculum design, syllabus creation, and lesson planning leads to a dynamic and flexible pedagogy approach that increases accessibility for all learners. Such an approach grounds language learning in core principles of diversity and decolonization: critical self-reflection, an emphasis on fairness and inclusion, and the breaking down of social barriers that bar diverse students from equal access to learning. Using theoretical concepts of Disability Studies (DS), this chapter first pinpoints mechanisms for the marginalization and exclusion of disabled people in higher education before demonstrating how these mechanisms function in the German language classroom. By extrapolating from anecdotal experiences, the chapter then applies the theoretical discussion to the teaching practice in the German language classroom, before critically examining inclusive language pedagogy, specifically Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a possible step toward accessibility and inclusion through pedagogy.

1  The Damaging Ideal of the Normate Learner Social values, which all too often stem from the premise of normalcy, influence our environments and interactions through architectural design, educational standards, individual attitudes, and language.

13  DISRUPTING THE NORM: DISABILITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION … 

235

Normalcy presents itself as static, unchanging, and even natural, despite being a socially constructed referential system (Titchkosky 2015, p. 132). By examining the historical and cultural influences on the concept, scholars in and adjacent to the field of DS demonstrate that normalcy is an artificial concept that has undergone significant changes throughout history (ibid., p. 131). DS therefore questions the validity of and reliance on “normal” as a social concept. DS research also emphasizes that normalcy is performative. One’s failure or inability to perform the task of appearing normal meets with stigmatization and exclusion, in order to reinforce the hegemonic power of normalcy in society. The concept of normalcy is thus detrimental to the quality of life of disabled people1: it defines them through their disability and curtails their access to various social resources based on the idea of normalcy. Rosemary Garland-Thomson focuses these detrimental influences with her term normate man, which represents “the constructed identity of those who, by way of the bodily configurations and cultural capital they assume, can step into a position of authority and wield the power it grants them” (1997, p. 8). The normate man is culturally and socially positioned to participate fully in society and glean its benefits. In contrast, DS theory defines disability as “produced as much by environmental and social factors as it is by bodily conditions” (Adams et al. 2015, p. 5)—a definition also applicable to the design and conventions of academic environments. The ideal of the normate man undergirds social structures and normalizes the exclusion of people who do not meet this definition: A belief in normate man and normate culture helps to make the marginalization, or even exclusion of some people seem natural. This process is perpetuated by the removal of definitional power from those understood as disabled. Daily life confronts many people as an obstacle to participation since it is set up in support of the mythical normate man. (Titchkosky 2011, p. 26)

The reaction to disability by a society invested in normate ideals is ableism, which “characterizes persons as defined by their disabilities and 1 Although people-first language is commonly more accepted, I use identity-first language because it reflects my experience of disability. Being in a wheelchair is a very visible part of my identity that determines my mobility in an often less-than-perfect social and physical environment.

236  P. WATZKE

as inferior to the non-disabled” (Linton 2010, p. 9). Ableism signifies ingrained, systematic discrimination against and social stigmatization of people who physically or mentally do not reflect the model of normalcy.2 The social concepts of normalcy and ableism have significant consequences for individual students and the classroom community in general. Colleges and universities are designed for what I call a normate learner, an adaptation of Garland-Thomson’s term, meaning a student who is socially and culturally unmarked, whether by disability or other diversity traits. Such a student can fully participate in and take advantage of all the opportunities that their postsecondary education has to offer, within the existing setup. Academic institutions historically have not envisioned difference and diversity as desirable traits in their student population. Indeed, as Jay Timothy Dolmage states, “academia powerfully demands able-bodiedness and able-mindedness, as well as other forms of social and communicative hyperability” (2017, p. 7). Academia is invariably ableist in its elitism. Students who do not conform to the narrow ideal of a normate learner are unwelcome and will be ill served by institutions that are hardly prepared to provide access and inclusion for all learners. Moreover, most postsecondary institutions perceive disability as a costly problem and liability, not as an identity or a pedagogical factor (Burgstahler and Cory 2008, p. 566). Reducing disability to a medical diagnosis, an administrative hurdle, results in minimum accommodations recommended not by educators but by legal officers, often without consulting the individual students. The results are not inclusive learning environments but disabled students who are marginalized, generalized, and stigmatized. Creating a campus culture that welcomes and includes disabled students is especially important now because more disabled students attend college than in prior years. The number of students with disabilities enrolled in college degree programs has tripled since 1978, thanks to the efforts of disability rights activists and legislation that guarantees access to postsecondary education for disabled students (Berberi 2008, p. 4). In recent years, 11% of undergraduate students self-identified as 2 Ableism cannot and should not be regarded in isolation from other forms of structural inequalities. It intersects with other manifestations of inequality in complex ways, as Jay Timothy Dolmage emphasizes: “Ableism can and should often be seen as an intersecting force… —not in place of but always in a layered and complicated relationship with these other forms of structural discrimination” (2017, p. 49).

13  DISRUPTING THE NORM: DISABILITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION … 

237

having a disability and registered with disability services (Snyder and de Brey 2016, p. 438). Yet despite this progress, graduation rates for disabled students are significantly lower than those for nondisabled learners—29.4% compared to 42.2% (Sanford et al. 2011, p. 19). Infrastructural and legal access have not automatically translated to success because they have not achieved positive inclusion but have instead inadvertently reinforced stigmatization and lack of understanding. To help explain this inclusion gap, we can look to the differences between services for disabled students at institutions of higher learning versus in primary and secondary schools. In the latter, students who receive a diagnosis of disability can rely on a support system that enables students to succeed by determining what individualized accommodations and resources they need (Berberi 2008, pp. 4–5). But this individualized support system largely falls away in postsecondary institutions. Students must navigate a new, highly competitive academic environment without the support systems they were accustomed to in their earlier years. In compliance with the laws that regulate access and accommodation for disabled students in higher education, namely the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, the structure of accommodation in higher education relies on the input of experts to determine the students’ needs. This invalidates the students’ lived experience and self-awareness of their needs. Postsecondary education further compels disabled students to rely on self-advocacy and often-limited institutional resources. The challenges of being in this new context often lead to frustration among disabled students: they face a broad lack of understanding, often an unwillingness to accommodate their needs, and overall stigmatization (Grassgreen 2014). It is therefore not surprising that only about 40% of disabled students officially register with disability services; bureaucratic hurdles and the fear of stigmatization keep most disabled students from taking this step (Haji-Akbar 2018). Current disability support services often further marginalize and stigmatize students, while also doing little to change the structure or politics of universities (Burgstahler and Cory 2008, p. 563). In other words, these offices construct disability as an individualized, medicalized problem, rather than as a broader social concern: “Understanding disability as a personal need, which requires evaluation, services, or counseling, rather than collective action of exploration, requires us to engage disability in individualized terms” (Titchkosky 2011, p. 12). The consequences of approaching disability as a personal issue rather than

238  P. WATZKE

a political one shape the policies of on-campus disability services (and of educators themselves), while placing the burden of inclusion on the student. A change of institutional culture is necessary—a change away from accommodation toward inclusion.

2  The Disabled Educator Ableism in campus culture marginalizes not only disabled students but also disabled educators. Disabled faculty members are a severely underrepresented demographic: their population in higher education lags far behind that of the general population and hardly any research on them exists.3 That disparity further emphasizes the pervasive power that ableism plays in academia. Belief in normalcy damages faculty, leading to barriers to inclusion through pedagogy training and materials, architectural spaces, and administrative conventions. Jay Timothy Dolmage elucidates academia’s ingrained mechanisms of enforcing normalcy: “Universities continue to function to keep certain groups of individuals out of the work force and away from status positions, and away from knowledge, and dialogue, and power, and not just through admissions” (2017, p. 21). Keeping disabled faculty members away from positions of power (as is also true for other marginalized groups), perpetuates academic ableism and reinforces the damaging ideal of normalcy. If there are no disabled faculty members in positions of authority, then disability can be construed as unimportant to the institutional framework. This increases the precarity of disabled educators’ employment, as one pseudonymous author emphasizes: Unfortunately, the opportunities for Ph.D.s [sic] with disabilities to become full professors are growing less, rather than more, available. Research suggests that there is still a pervasive atmosphere of malignant neglect toward faculty accommodation. This, coupled with the explosively expanding shift toward an adjunct, rather than tenured, academic

3 “At the University of California at Berkeley, a recent Freedom of Information Act request indicated that of 1522 full-time faculty members, 24—roughly 1.5%—are disabled. The National Center for College Students with Disabilities estimates that 4% of all faculty members have disabilities. These numbers are discouraging, given that 22% of the general population has disabilities” (Grigley 2017).

13  DISRUPTING THE NORM: DISABILITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION … 

239

workforce bode[s] ill for aspiring professors with disabilities. The adjunct economy adds yet one more inherent workplace disadvantage to the load of them already borne … by new Ph.D.s with disabilities. (Adjunct 2008)

The incremental loss of tenure-track positions further marginalizes disabled academics and keeps them from positions of authority. Further research on the number of disabled educators in contingent positions and the status of disabled faculty members in general is necessary in order to demonstrate the underrepresentation and systematic marginalization of this group. But even if disabled academics secure a postsecondary teaching position, they are still subject to mechanisms of marginalization and exclusion. Although disability can take many forms, both visible and invisible, most disabled educators must negotiate existing pedagogical models, administrative demands, and architectural realities to fit their own needs. Disabled faculty members must work toward their own accommodation in addition to their job duties but self-advocacy is time-consuming, onerous, and frustrating emotional labor. According to Joseph Grigley (2017) that labor reduces the impact they could otherwise have as educators: “Only when disabled faculty members are allowed to teach and research unencumbered by a need to advocate for access will students be able to see the possibilities of a career that extends beyond their disability.” Disabled faculty members can play an important role in the process of making academic culture more inclusive but only if they themselves are fully included.

3  Confronting Ableism in the German Language Classroom While the inclusion of disabled educators and students requires a general rethinking of academic culture, changing how disability is addressed in a classroom environment is also an important step in this direction toward institutional change. In order to make relevant and necessary changes toward accessibility and inclusion, German language educators must address the ableism that permeates textbooks and language pedagogy in our classrooms. Most current German language textbooks and German language pedagogy rely on and perpetuate the concept of the normate learner. This harms diverse learning communities and ultimately places the onus of creating an inclusive learning experience on the educator.

240  P. WATZKE

Although educators certainly should design inclusive teaching materials, foregrounding inclusion and accessibility in textbooks and language pedagogy is a crucial step toward changing the ableist culture of postsecondary education. Two anecdotes from my teaching experience will serve to illustrate this claim. As a wheelchair user, I do not conform to the standards of normalcy that textbooks or pedagogy training envision for educators. Nothing makes this clearer to me than the first exercises in a German textbook for beginners, which, following the communicative approach, focuses on Total Physical Response (TPR). TPR is a language teaching method based on the coordination of language and physical movement, where an educator gives and models a command and students respond with a physical action. In Kontakte, the elementary German textbook with which I am most familiar, students learn via TPR by following simple commands given in the formal imperative. Next to commands such as “öffnen Sie das Buch!” (open the book) and “hören Sie zu!” (listen), other commands demand more physical actions, such as “stehen Sie auf!” (stand up) or “gehen Sie” (walk) (Tschirner and Nikolai 2017, p. 4). I am not able to model these commands for my students.4 Yet the pedagogy training that I received in graduate school deemed these exercises essential for productive instruction in the new language. Accordingly, my own physical limitations led to a feeling of inadequacy with regard to this method. I believed myself at fault for not being able to instruct my students following this basic practice. That feeling stemmed directly from the pedagogy training that I received, which is common to many graduate programs. It includes an often-unquestioned belief in the authority of textbooks, which in turn perpetuates the narrow conception of pedagogy geared toward normate learners. This means the future of our profession is out of step with efforts toward diversity and inclusion: The need to educate faculty becomes even more urgent when considering that in large universities most of the beginning language courses are taught by teaching assistants who are in the process of learning how to teach.

4 Other commands introduced at the beginning include “laufen Sie!” (run), and my favorite, “springen Sie!” (jump). These commands clearly serve the purpose of creating community by doing silly or fun activities that break a taboo of classroom behavior. Yet these activities exemplify the textbook’s focus on normate learners who are physically and socially situated to engage in such an exercise of condoned rule-breaking.

13  DISRUPTING THE NORM: DISABILITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION … 

241

They not only rely on the information provided by the language faculty but also constitute the next generation of secondary and postsecondary teachers. (Lazda-Cazers and Thorson 2008, p. 109)

Ignoring disability and ableism in pedagogy training does not adequately prepare graduate student educators for the classroom or for the future of our profession. It further normalizes marginalization and reduces student engagement. This is not only apparent in the above example focusing on the shortcomings of my own pedagogy training, but can also be seen in the textbook’s expectations about the normate learner, as my second anecdote brings into focus. One type of exercise that appears repeatedly in Kontakte is the so-called “signature exercise,” which prompts students to ask questions of their peers and write down the peers’ names when they receive a positive response. It instructs students to carry their big and bulky textbooks around the classroom for this exercise—which became impossible for a student with limited mobility. In order to participate in the exercise, the student enlisted the help of another student who would carry the book around and take notes. The two students essentially completed the task together, which minimized their individual speaking opportunities and engagement with the language. I realized that I had to change the parameters of the exercise to enable these students to participate fully and to get the same practice as all other students in the class. I responded by subverting the very premise of using the book itself, instead displaying the exercise via projector. This small change enabled all the students to participate fully—and it increased the level of engagement in the class in general, as none of the students now had to carry the cumbersome textbook around. While my change in teaching style stemmed from a reaction to a student’s needs, it led me to think more critically of what I demand from all my students. This example demonstrates the necessity of creating teaching materials that transcend the textbook’s often narrow concept of their target audience. Developing my own approach to using the textbook as a resource in the service of my and my students’ needs meant that my relationship to the textbook changed. It was no longer an infallible authority I had to obey. As Dale Brown has noted, “in the field of curricular studies textbooks are seen as a critical site for the exercise of power and authority” (2014, p. 658). For educators, especially those who recently completed graduate school pedagogy training and who lack years of their

242  P. WATZKE

own teaching experience, textbooks and other teaching materials can occupy an authoritative position. A textbook not only transports objective knowledge about grammar and vocabulary but also conveys a set of beliefs and values to which the educator may choose not to conform. In my case, my pedagogy training led me to accept the authoritative power of the textbook even where it did not necessarily serve my and my students’ needs or best interest. With increased teaching experience, I was able to reflect critically on my teaching practice and change textbook’s role in it. My personal anxieties about my perceived physical inadequacies, as well as the experiences of disabled students in my classroom, illustrate how ableism enters our classroom through teaching materials and pedagogy training. Only after consciously distancing myself from this belief was I able to retake control in the classroom. I decentralized the textbook’s authority and re-conceptualized it as a tool among other tools. I am also more selective with the textbook assignments and exercises that I use, and I alter, change, or expand on instructions for exercises to better fit the needs of disabled individuals. Additionally, I use other textual materials that introduce the students to diverse voices from German-speaking cultures. In other words, I began to embrace the principles of Universal Design Learning (UDL) for my classroom instruction and lesson planning. Critically reviewing teaching practices that I had adapted based on my pedagogy training showed me how narrow and ableist many of them were and how few of the students could be truly reached with such a narrow approach. However, many educators do not have pedagogical and institutional support that would enable them to best educate students with disabilities. It is then most often up to the educators to come up with individualized solutions for students that do not fit a specific pedagogic mold.5 We need a cultural intervention that 5 Including

students with visual and/or auditory impairments, for whom textbooks are often inaccessible, can be especially frustrating for educators because adequate resources and teaching materials are lacking. Teaching resources that are available in electronic form and that increasingly comply with the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards (NIMAS) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0 AA), in accordance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, promise an improvement. Nevertheless, too often the onus on finding and adapting these materials is on the educator because textbook companies do not do enough to enable the inclusion of visual and/or auditory impaired members of the learning community.

13  DISRUPTING THE NORM: DISABILITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION … 

243

highlights the inherent shortcomings of existing teaching materials and language pedagogy. One of the main principles of UDL provides such an intervention: Inclusion should not be an afterthought but should be built into pedagogical approaches from the beginning.

4   A Critical Look at Universal Design for Learning As demonstrated throughout this chapter, textbooks, and pedagogy instruction are often designed to meet the needs of an imaginary normate learner; they thus perpetuate academic ableism and do not anticipate learners with varying abilities, learning styles, backgrounds, and motivations (CAST 2011). Instead of catering to the elusive ideal of the normate learner, an inclusive approach to teaching such as UDL addresses the reality of a diverse classroom community (Womack 2017). In its practices and structures, UDL is modeled after Universal Design (UD), an architectural movement that focuses on increasing disabled people’s access to and use of buildings through inclusive design choices (Dolmage 2017). UD developed in the second half of the twentiethcentury concomitant with disability rights activism; it emphasizes “the design and composition of an environment so that it can be accessed, understood and used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless of their age, size, ability or disability” (National Disability Authority 2014). We encounter UD in everyday settings: automatic sliding doors, building ramps, or curb cuts on a sidewalk. UDL has the similar goal of providing access for the largest number of learners via inclusive pedagogy. By addressing the needs of disabled students who are too often marginalized, stigmatized, or neglected in the elitist structures of higher education, as a form of accommodation UDL takes “disability as impulse to recalibrate the baseline for everyone” (Emens 2015, p. 20). The framework of UDL emerges from advances in neuroscience and the learning sciences. It is founded on the premise that there is no average learner. Rather, UDL maintains that “there is tremendous variability among individuals in how they perceive and interact with any environment, including the classroom. Variability and difference therefore constitute the norm from student to student.—even among those who seem to share similar characteristics” (Hall et al. 2012, p. 3). In order to address students’ individual needs, UDL provides three overarching

244  P. WATZKE

principles for teaching and learning: (1) provide multiple means of representation, (2) provide multiple means of action and expression, and (3) provide multiple means of engagement (ibid., p. 11). By offering students multiple access points, motivations, and ways to express what they learned, UDL makes teaching more flexible and accessible. These considerations are best implemented with a nonauthoritarian approach, which Jay Timothy Dolmage classifies as the social justice aspect of UD: “the importance of including everyone in the discussion that creates space” (2017, p. 132). This means close communication with the students and allowing them to contribute to the course design by soliciting their feedback regularly and frequently. Validating students’ individuality and agency actively counters academic ableism and implements the disruptive potential of pedagogy. A potential obstacle to UDL is what Dolmage refers to as “interest convergence” (2017, p. 135): if UDL should be implemented because it is beneficial for all students, can that lead to a situation where the needs of the majority group (nondisabled students) trump those of disabled students? One way to address that problem would include rigorously checking all implementations of UDL for where they reinforce the majority’s privileges and thus exclude traditionally disenfranchised students. Studying intersections of UDL and anti-racist pedagogy that enables and includes Black students might be beneficial in this regard (ibid., p. 136).6 Since disability is always an intersectional reality, the implementation of UDL should be accompanied and guided by a rigorous look at how our students’ backgrounds might influence their access to resources and their participation in the social environment in our classroom. Only when we implement UDL in a conscious way that interrogates implicit and explicit biases can we achieve inclusion and academic fairness. The alternative is too bleak: Leaving access as an afterthought, situating it as something nice to be done out of a spirit of charity, or as something people with disabilities are being unfairly given. Without Universal Design the alternatives are the “steep steps” that are set out in front of many people with disabilities,

6 Higbee et al. (2010) propose multicultural instructional design as an extension of UDL that considers the needs of learners in categories of diversity including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background. Their approach represents an implementation of pedagogy based on social justice.

13  DISRUPTING THE NORM: DISABILITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION … 

245

or the “retrofits” that might remove barriers or provide access for disabled people, but do so in ways that physically and ideologically locate disability as either deserving exclusion or as an afterthought. (ibid., p. 134)

Even educators with good intentions can inadvertently marginalize and stigmatize their disabled students, but realizing the inclusive approach outlined in UDL in the German classroom can begin with small changes. My earlier example of accommodating a student with limited mobility in communicative and active assignments was a small measure that had a big impact on the student’s level of participation and her inclusion in the classroom community. Furthermore, the simple changes that I made improved the communication and interaction among all students in the classroom, who now did not have to lug around heavy books during communicative interactions. Observing these significant improvements constituted the beginning of my interest in UDL. I decided to change the parameters of my teaching—and my general approach to pedagogy— so that such an individual accommodation would no longer be necessary. I encourage German language educators to implement UDL by examining their syllabi, teaching strategies, language, and classroom environment. Embedding UDL practices in the principles of diversity and decolonization provides an opportunity for fostering accessibility and diversity through teaching, as the following recommendations (based on my own experiences) demonstrate. When planning courses and lessons, the focus should always be to create multiple access points for learning, while being transparent about goals, fostering community and communication, and providing flexibility in all aspects of learning. Clearly, state or display the goals for every lesson at the beginning in order to establish a transparent framework that motivates students through incremental steps. Providing regular (i.e., weekly) feedback to students, and giving them the chance to request adjustments to teaching that might improve their learning, allows students to partake in the shaping of the course design. Providing flexibility in teaching and instruction might begin with offering the students the choice of electronic or hard-copy materials. Students can benefit from additional features in the electronic versions of our textbooks, such as adjustable font size, or the option to listen to and repeat vocabulary and phrases. It is similarly beneficial to have a flexible policy about students’ use of computers in the classroom, as students with a variety of impairments can benefit from screen reading or -writing.

246  P. WATZKE

The instruction itself should be similarly flexible and accessible. When using audio or audiovisual material, such as recorded dialogues or videos, instructors should select materials with textual support in the form of subtitles (for videos) or a display of the entire dialogue (for audio). In assignments, flexibility might include stating the goal of an assignment and offering the students various ways to fulfill that goal. In more advanced German courses, for instance, my students can replace a final essay assignment with a creative project. I stipulate that students engage with one of the texts we read in class according to clearly defined parameters, but I leave the medium of the expression up to the individual. This allows students to explore their creative potential and complete the assignment in accordance with their strengths. In the past, I have received graphic novels, paintings, poems, even a music composition. Overall, stimulating students’ engagement with various ways of motivation should underpin the learning process in general by motivating students in different ways through playfulness in class while challenging them in a supportive manner. All these UDL-informed options are possible through close communication with the students (asking for their feedback and being transparent about the course goals) and providing a supportive and welcoming classroom environment. In recent years, several helpful resources have emerged to support and inform about the implementation of UDL for all stages of education. Educators might visit UD online (www.cast.org) as well as the Do It initiative based at the University of Washington (http://www.washington.edu/doit/). These resources can help implement UDL across postsecondary institutions in the US. They represent an intervention into traditional forms of pedagogy and, with it, into the ingrained ableist structures of academia in general. In order to make lasting changes to how German language education encounters disability, pedagogy instruction and materials must adapt to the needs of students and educators alike. UDL can be a productive option to increase accessibility and inclusion in the classroom.

5  Conclusion Universities and colleges are not designed to welcome and include disabled students and faculty. In order to provide fair and equal access for disabled campus members, a rethinking of academic culture is necessary. Supplemental programs that define disability as a medical (and hence

13  DISRUPTING THE NORM: DISABILITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION … 

247

individualized) issue are insufficient in reaching this goal. However, UDL can materially help academic culture by providing access to students and educators of all abilities in the classroom, and by increasing their fair and equal inclusion in the campus environment more generally. Although this rethinking must happen on a broad basis that transcends classroom instruction, we as educators of German can take a vital first step by actively reviewing our own pedagogy and seeing how it might implicitly support the ableist system of academic culture. German language pedagogy should embrace UDL to demonstrate empathy and a worldview that embraces achievement and excellence but also to emphasize equal opportunities for students of diverse identities including race, sexual identity, gender, age, socioeconomic situation, and ability. Promoting accessibility and inclusion through UDL would also be an opportunity to show students aspects of German culture beyond the glossy pages of the textbook, by highlighting the lives of disabled people in German-speaking countries. Implementing UDL in German language classrooms in the US is thus not only a progressive pedagogical approach that highlights inclusion, fairness, and empathy but also a political step in emphasizing the importance of these values in postsecondary education and thus rejecting academic ableism. Above all, implementing UDL is a step toward making disability an issue of conversation—a true dialogue that involves educators, students, stakeholders, and activists alike. By highlighting the challenges that students and educators who identify as disabled face in academia and in the German language classroom, this chapter hopes to contribute to the growing discourse about addressing disability in academic culture.

References Adams, Rachel, Benjamin Reiss, and David Serlin. 2015. “Disability.” In Keywords for Disability Studies, edited by Rachel Adams, Benjamin Reiss, and David Serlin, 1–5. New York: New York University Press. Adjunct, Alice K. [pseud.]. 2008. “The Revolving Ramp: Disability and the New Adjunct Economy. Disability Studies Quarterly 28 (3). Accessed 14 January 2019. http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/110/110. Berberi, Tammy. 2008. “Bridging Worlds Apart: Disability and the Foreign Languages Where We Live and Learn.” In Worlds Apart? Disability and Foreign Language Learning, by Tammy Berberi, Elisabeth C. Hamilton, and Ian M. Sutherland, 1–19. New Haven: Yale University Press. Accessed 14 January 2019. https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300116304.003.0001.

248  P. WATZKE Brown, Dale. 2014. “The Power and Authority of Materials in the Classroom Ecology.” The Modern Language Journal 98 (2): 658–61. Burgstahler, Sheryl, and Rebecca Cory. 2008. “Moving in from the Margins: From Accommodation to Universal Design.” In Disability & the Politics of Education: An International Reader, edited by Susan L. Gabel and Scot Danforth, 561–81. New York: Peter Lang. CAST. 2011. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 2.0. Wakefield, MA. Accessed 14 January 2019. www.cast.org. Dolmage, Jay Timothy. 2017. Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Emens, Elizabeth F. 2015. “Accommodation.” In Keywords for Disability Studies, edited by Rachel Adams, Benjamin Reiss, and David Serlin, 19–22. New York: New York University Press. Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 1997. Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press. Godden, Nick, and Ann-Marie Womack. 2016. “Making Disability Part of the Conversation: Combating Inaccessible Spaces and Logics.” Hybrid Pedagogy. May 12. Accessed 14 January 2019. http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/ hybridped/making-disability-part-of-the-conversation/. Grassgreen, Allie. 2014. “Dropping the Ball on Disabilities.” Inside Higher Ed. April 2. Accessed 14 January 2019. https://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2014/04/02/students-disabilities-frustrated-ignorance-and-lack-services. Grigley, Joseph. 2017. “The Neglected Demographic: Faculty Members with Disabilities.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. July 21. Accessed 14 January 2019. https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Neglected-Demographic-/ 240439. Haji-Akbar, Amir. 2018. “Disability Parking Spots Yet to be Filled.” Inside Higher Ed. April 9. Accessed 14 January 2019. https://www.insidehighered. com/views/2018/04/09/higher-ed-needs-new-approaches-hiring-facultymembers-disabilities-opinion. Hall, Tracey E., Anne Meyer, and David H. Rose, eds. 2012. Universal Design for Learning in the Classroom Practical Applications. New York: Guilford Press. Higbee, Jeanne L., Jennifer L. Schultz, and Emily Goff. 2010. “Pedagogy of Inclusion: Integrated Multicultural Instructional Design.” Journal of College Reading and Learning 41 (1): 49–66. Lazda-Cazers, Rasma, and Helga Thorson. 2008. “Teaching Foreign Languages to Students with Disabilities: Initiatives to Educate Faculty.” In Worlds Apart? Disability and Foreign Language Learning, edited by Tammy Berberi, Elisabeth C. Hamilton, and Ian M. Sutherland, 107–36. New Haven: Yale University Press. Accessed 14 January 2019. https://doi.org/10.12987/ yale/9780300116304.003.0001.

13  DISRUPTING THE NORM: DISABILITY, ACCESS, AND INCLUSION … 

249

Linton, Simi. 2010. Claiming Disability Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York University Press. National Disability Authority. 2014. “What Is Universal Design?” Center for Excellence in Universal Design. Accessed 14 January 2019. http://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/. PANDA-Minnesota Adult Basic Education. “Universal Design for Learning: Elements of Good Teaching.” In Fast Facts for Faculty. The Ohio State University Partnership Grant. Accessed 14 January 2019. http://www.inclusion-ny.org/files/ohiostate.pdf. Sanford, Christopher, Lynn Newman, Mary Wagner, Renée Cameto, AnneMarie Knokey, and Debra Shaver. 2011. The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults With Disabilities Up to 6 Years After High School: Key Findings From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). US Department of Education (NCSER 2011–3004). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Snyder, Thomas D., and Cristobal de Brey. 2016. “Postsecondary Education.” In Digest of Education Statistics 2016, 52nd ed., 399–646. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics. Titchkosky, Tanya. 2011. The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. Toronto: Toronto University Press. ———. 2015. “Normalcy.” In Keywords for Disability Studies, edited by Rachel Adams, Benjamin Reiss, and David Serlin, 130–32. New York: New York University Press. Tschirner, Erwin P., and Brigitte Nikolai. 2017. Kontakte: A Communicative Approach, 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Womack, Ann-Marie. 2017. “Teaching Is Accommodation: Universally Designing Composition Classrooms and Syllabi.” College Composition and Communication 68 (3): 494–525.

CHAPTER 14

Multidirectional Memory as Decolonial Pedagogical Practice in German Studies Lauren Hansen

In the spirit of this volume that seeks to question canonical traditions and challenge assumptions about our field and its learners, this chapter argues that the essence of Michael Rothberg’s “multidirectional memory” has, at its core, a decolonial mission. Though published ten years ago, multidirectional memory can facilitate meaningful decolonial pedagogy in the German Studies classroom. In this chapter, I will first provide an overview of multidirectional memory and follow up with elaboration on its links to decolonial thinking. Following that, I will outline a course entitled “Transnational Perspectives on Holocaust Memory,” which examines different positionalities and, in turn, sheds light on ethnocentric frames of reference when approaching Holocaust memory. This approach, as I will show through textual examples as well as assignments and classroom activities, has the capacity to position students’ self-assessment of personal narratives in the context of national, international, and multidirectional narratives, fostering deep criticality conducive to decolonial thinking.

L. Hansen (*)  New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_14

251

252  L. HANSEN

1  Multidirectional Memory “When memories of slavery and colonialism bump up against memories of the Holocaust in contemporary multicultural societies, must a competition of victims ensue?” asks Michael Rothberg in his book Multidirectional Memory: Remembering the Holocaust in the Age of Decolonization (Rothberg 2009, p. 2). This question is thought-provoking because it cuts across times and places in order to draw various events into a competitive or, in Rothberg’s view, productive concatenation. In suggesting an alternative to competitive memory, Rothberg defines “multidirectional memory” as a social phenomenon that connects disparate cultural memory narratives. According to Rothberg, rather than viewing discourses related to slavery and decolonization as competing with or threatening the unique place of the Holocaust in modern Western history, these discourses developed concomitantly and can foster solidarity for a more just future. Though published nearly a decade ago, multidirectional memory continues to contribute to increasingly transnational and transcultural methodologies that find various points of connection and probe the categories of nation and culture. Furthermore, multidirectional memory collapses the vertical hierarchy of power that operates on a zero-sum logic and within which memory narratives compete for recognition. In place of that hierarchy, multidirectional memory connects in a horizontal manner. The aim of multidirectional memory is not to relativize different historical events; rather, it aims to explore their differences and find their unexpected connections for the empowerment of all. Ironically, multidirectional memory’s transnational methodology is precisely what gives it boundaries, as scholars raise questions about its applicability in various contexts (Dolgoy and Elżanowski 2018; Marcuse 2012). For instance, Lucy Bond cogently contends that Holocaust memory, through the narrativizing mode of analogy, among others, has the potential to become co-opted into nationalistically affirmative rhetoric of equivalence that downplays or seeks to eliminate difference (Bond 2014, p. 67). I share Bond’s reservations toward multidirectional memory for its potential for “national self-congratulation” (Novick 2000, p. 13). However, Marcuse and Bond seem to suggest that, provided there is enough reflexivity from the outset, meaning careful and thoughtful design and with perhaps a decolonial framework in mind, a text or a class, can bring about the reflexivity that Dolgoy, Elżanowski, and Bond stress. I contend that highlighting multidirectional memory’s decolonial

14  MULTIDIRECTIONAL MEMORY AS DECOLONIAL PEDAGOGICAL … 

253

mission can indeed foster fruitful engagement with a variety of memory narratives in the classroom by stressing that “all readings of the past [are] contingent, subjective, and ultimately incomplete” (Bond 2014, p. 76). If, as Rothberg contends, a comparative lens proliferates “new objects and new lines of insight” (Rothberg 2009, pp. 18–19), imagine the potential that this could unlock in our classrooms, in terms of envisioning unexpected connections or breaking down binaries or zero-sum logic in order to multiply the possibilities. Multidirectional memory opens up new literary and artistic avenues to explore in Holocaust literature courses in addition to canonical texts. In contrast to history-oriented courses, which are indeed necessary, the decolonial Holocaust memory curriculum explores what Rothberg calls “imaginative links” (2009, p. 18). That is, as we explore memory of the Holocaust, rather than the Holocaust itself, multidirectional memory highlights connections based on perceptual similarities and our openness to them, rather than on historically verifiable facts (2009, p. 18). Through its comparative lens, lesser-known texts emerge and enrich the archive of Holocaust literature to which we introduce our students. The following section attends to the decoloniality of multidirectional memory. But why is a decolonial approach to a Holocaust course or curriculum even necessary? Holocaust education curricula have centered on survivor testimony (Leshem 2018, pp. 1–2), neglecting the transnational intellectual conversations and artistic engagements that have highlighted the interconnectedness of the Holocaust with other forms of oppression. Survivors themselves have stressed the importance of a “holistic inclusion of a full spectrum of instances of genocide and mass atrocity” rather than a debate about the uniqueness of the Holocaust itself (Leshem 2018, p. 2). Adhering to a set of canonical texts isolates the Holocaust as an event, reproducing the proprietary and competitive logic that Rothberg has shown to prevail in contemporary cultural memory politics. In keeping with current transnational and transcultural methodologies in Literary Studies and Memory Studies, the course outlined below traces the Holocaust’s associations with other historical events as they are presented in literature and film. Furthermore, to serve emerging decolonial pedagogical strategies in our field, the course underscores the ethical and political potential of Holocaust memory that Rothberg elaborates in Multidirectional Memory. To be sure, the course I outline below should enhance, rather than replace, existing course modules at the postsecondary level.

254  L. HANSEN

2  Multidirectional Memory and Decoloniality Rothberg’s theory of multidirectional memory carries even deeper implications for the classroom if one implements it as a decolonial pedagogical tool. According to Walter Mignolo, decoloniality is an ongoing mode of knowledge production in which decolonial thinkers are aware of their geopolitical and body-political knowledge. Epistemically, they are positioned outside of Western norms as they strive to uncover colonial/ imperial logics that undergird past and present forms of subjugation and exclusion. However, at the risk of excluding anyone from performing necessary and insightful work of epistemological decolonization, I would augment Mignolo’s idea for pedagogical purposes by proposing an inclusive decoloniality whereby one need not identify as non-Western in order to think decolonially. What role, then, does decolonial thinking play in multidirectional memory and how do their connections translate into pedagogy? Rothberg writes that “early Holocaust memory emerged in dialogue with the dynamic transformations and multifaceted struggles that define the era of decolonization” (2009, p. 7). Multidirectional memory as a theory does not just explore decolonization as an object of study; it also is, in itself, decolonial in at least two different ways that affect text selection and methodology for a course such as the one I will describe in this chapter. For one, it develops a countertradition that situates emerging collective memory of the Holocaust among likewise emerging processes of the post-war era: the processes of decolonization, the civil rights struggle, “and their modes of coming to terms with colonialism, slavery, and racism” (Rothberg 2009, p. 22). By constructing a “long-term minoritarian tradition of ‘decolonized’ Holocaust memory” (Rothberg 2009, p. 22), Rothberg’s theory counters predominant assumptions that the world was largely silent about the Holocaust, let alone drawing it into association with colonial contexts. There are lesser-known texts and “marginalized moments in well-known texts” in and through which authors and intellectuals not only spoke out about the Holocaust, but also compared it to colonialism in other contexts (Rothberg 2009, p. 18). Rothberg focuses on work from “anticolonial activists” and “experimental documentarians,” juxtaposing, for instance, Hannah Arendt’s Origins and Totalitarianism (1951) and Aime Cesaire’s Discourse on Colonialism (1950) to illuminate their respective insights and blind spots in articulating the links between the Holocaust and

14  MULTIDIRECTIONAL MEMORY AS DECOLONIAL PEDAGOGICAL … 

255

colonialism. Hannah Arendt was one of the first to articulate the specificity of the Holocaust in the immediate post-war years (Rothberg 2009, p. 37) and situate it within a larger contextual frame of colonialism and imperialism (p. 65). However, as Rothberg points out, she remains within the confines of Eurocentrism (p. 69). She reproduces problematic tendencies in colonial discourses of that time through “presuppositions about the nature of human, Africa, and the colonial encounter” (p. 65). Like Arendt, Aime Cesaire attempts to link the Holocaust with other narratives of violent domination; however, in the process, he subsumes historical specificity to the teleological frame of Communist ideology (Rothberg 2009, p. 70). As I will elaborate below, more examples of attempted linkages between the Holocaust and other manifestations of violent oppression can be found in more recent texts. Multidirectional memory challenges dominant knowledge of the post-war period by charting the development of Holocaust memory with concomitant forces and discourses of decolonization that likewise characterized the post-war period. On a more abstract level, multidirectional memory is also decolonial to the extent that it reshapes our thinking about individual, collective, and, by extension, national memory practices. Rothberg sketches out what he sees as a predominantly proprietary model of memory, meaning on the basis of identity, one claims ownership of a memory and its narrative. As an alternative, multidirectional memory decouples memory from identity or at least complicates the assumption of a straight line from past event to present identity politics. If we extrapolate the proprietary model of collective memory to the formation or reinforcement of a particular national identity, Rothberg unravels ethnocentrism by drawing attention to “the multidirectional flows of influence and articulation that collective memory activates…” (2009, p. 18). By taking lateral currents of influence into account, he renders unviable the notion of insular identities tethered to particular memory narratives that must compete against others. Instead, he proposes the following: Shared histories of racism, spatial segregation, genocide, diasporic displacement, cultural destruction, and—perhaps most important—savvy and creative resistance to hegemonic demands provide the grounds for new forms of collectivity that would not ignore equally powerful histories of division and difference. (Rothberg 2009, p. 23)

256  L. HANSEN

Striking about this passage is that Rothberg sees differences as a precondition for collectivity. Difference becomes the grounds for collective resistance to further injustices. Moving past the potential for identity politics to devolve into competitive fragmentation, the decoupling of memory and identity constitutes the ethical thrust of Rothberg’s theory today. If we to follow the call to make our German Studies less ethnocentric—a call promulgated by the 2007 MLA report on foreign language education in the United States—we have to counter nationalistic appropriations of Holocaust memory. With Mignolo’s decoloniality in mind, multidirectional memory invites us to both examine and think beyond our own national and cultural moorings to examine crucial differences, the sticking points of multidirectionality, as well as the links that transcend any one nation or culture. When “making the past present” (Rothberg 2009, p. 3; Terdiman 1993, p. 8), contextualizing that engagement and its underlying factors is critical. Walter Mignolo takes context into account in his revision of Descartes’s dictum: instead of “I think, therefore I am,” “I am where I think and do.” That is, according to Mignolo, “you constitute yourself in the place you think.” Mignolo proposes that we consider in which way our knowledge has been “configured by the colonial matrix of power” (Mignolo 2011, p. xvi). It is therefore crucial to foreground our own classroom experience, “we are where we think,” because it is rooted within a particular national and cultural context. By reading texts about the Holocaust that situate it among different constellations, students engage not only in critical thinking of these works as specimens of their respective contexts but also in decolonial thinking as they bring themselves into the equation as both explorers and contributors to Holocaust memory. I aim to emphasize these decolonial aspects of multidirectional memory as a pedagogical tool in service of rendering German Studies in the US less ethnocentric. The Holocaust has played a significant part in shaping and reinforcing America’s national consciousness as a free democratic society since WWII. American discourses employ the Holocaust largely “within the parameters that Americans were the ‘liberators’ and ‘Nazis’ the ‘perpetrators’” (Cole 1999, p. 157). Alan E. Steinweis’s scholarship on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC and the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Beit Hashoah-Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles shows how the moral dichotomies that arise as a result of unreflective

14  MULTIDIRECTIONAL MEMORY AS DECOLONIAL PEDAGOGICAL … 

257

curation enable a largely superficial engagement with Holocaust memory. The museums’ purpose is thus not only to inform visitors but also to reflect a particular ethnocentric image. School curricula and (pop) culture play into one another, as “curricula do not just have ‘cultural’ dimensions and dynamics, but are rather an explicit expression of culture” (Pearce 2017, p. 234). Riley, Washington, and Humphries remind us that students, by the time they arrive at the university, have already long been socialized in the American cultural context or that of their home country and are therefore perceptively prepped to pay attention to some aspects of the Holocaust and filter out others (Riley et al. 2011, p. 128). In spite or perhaps because of the ubiquity of the Holocaust in American culture and its long-term implementation into national curricula, the extent to which American students gain historical knowledge about the Holocaust is questionable (Pearce 2017, p. 232). A 2018 study conducted in the United States, for instance, shows that nearly half of millennials cannot name a single concentration camp, and 41% of those surveyed did not know what Auschwitz was (http://www.claimscon.org/study). My course does not by any means replace a history course that focuses on the facts of the Holocaust. In fact, the first week of my course is dedicated to a historical overview of the Holocaust. To segue into “memory” culture, at least one class meeting would then focus on the differences and overlaps between history and memory. After establishing a historical and conceptual foundation, the course introduces multidirectional texts with a sensibility toward students’ frames of reference to place them in the center of the learning process in a course on Holocaust memory. It calls on learners to reflect on their respective “frames” that they each bring to the classroom and to the site of interpretation (text or film). A literary analysis approach to multidirectional texts that attends to what Roland Barthes calls the “middle voice,” renders the reader an “active agent” (Clendinnen 1999, p. 179) and invokes precisely the idea that writers leave traces of themselves in what they write. In Barthes’s words, the middle voice “make[s] oneself the center of the action of speech, it is to effect writing by affecting oneself, […] to leave the scriptor inside the writing” (Barthes 1986, p. 18). If the writer is “constituted immediately contemporary with the writing” (White 1992, pp. 49–50), then it follows that the national and cultural frameworks in which the writer was socialized are also brought to bear in writing.

258  L. HANSEN

As for the reader, Clendinnen’s explanation of “the middle voice” renders the reader more passive: “brought into a constructed, controlled, directed engagement with the texts, and is invited to join the writer’s search for their meanings” (1999, p. 180). However, the point is not to simply follow along with the writer. Marla Morris puts forth a related idea somewhat more suitable to the task of decolonizing knowledge via multidirectional texts: This complex interaction between reader and text is guided by an unconscious transferential relation. The reader transfers her own patterns of perception onto the text which are marked by a certain amount of resistance, repression, and anxiety. The reader dwells in the liminal space between her own unconscious transference and the unconscious inscriptions introjected into the text by the writer. (Morris 2001, p. 7)

Whether one reads a historical work or a memoir, the reading experience is one of “transferential relation” between the reader’s unconscious biases and the writer’s discursive framing that infiltrates what they write. The reader, according to Morris’s formulation, is more active in a meeting of the minds within the transferential space of the text. The patterns of perception she refers to here are linked to the national and cultural context in which the reader has been socialized and educated. While Barthes’ middle voice focuses on the writer’s inscription of themselves, including their biases, into writing, Morris focuses on the psychological, epistemological limits of the reader. If we are already always trapped in our own nationally and culturally inflected vantage point, we can at least “becom[e] aware of our own habits of interpretation and translation” (Morris 2001, p. 8). Employing multidirectional texts as decolonial pedagogical tools is not meant to abandon our frames of reference, for this is impossible, nor to merely adopt another, for this is undesirable, not to mention appropriative. Multidirectional texts are conducive to decolonial thinking because they present constellations between Holocaust and legacies of colonialism or slavery and illuminate nationally and culturally inflected viewpoints inculcated in the writer. Seeing the frames of reference is a point of departure for readers to critically reflect on their own frames of reference. The following section outlines the objectives, texts, possible text cluster units, and assignments for a course aiming to facilitating criticality among learners in such a manner.

14  MULTIDIRECTIONAL MEMORY AS DECOLONIAL PEDAGOGICAL … 

259

3  The Course: Multidirectional Memory as Decolonial Pedagogical Tool in American German Studies Classrooms The course entitled “Transnational Perspectives on Holocaust Memory” is organized around the idea of multidirectional memory as decolonial and follows a pedagogical practice equally committed to highlighting students’ self-aware participation in understanding, receiving, and shaping Holocaust memory. The course is intended to be a general education course conducted in English but may also be offered in German, ideally to third-year or fourth-year students who have vocabulary and grammar skills adequate to tackle complex topics presented in the texts. It is important to note that if one strives to foster the specific outcome of questioning American frames of reference for engaging in Holocaust memory, English sources are unavoidable but could still serve as touchstones for discussion and writing in German. The main course objective is to become aware of ethnocentric frames of reference that inflect the diverse landscape of Holocaust memory for both producers and recipients of texts in circulation. The following outlines the progression of the course, giving a preview of the text corpus and examples of assignments and discussion questions. At the time of writing, the corpus of texts that lend themselves to varying degrees to multidirectional memory continues to undergo development and thought. The working assortment includes texts from the post-war era to 2016 that presents a cross-border, cross-temporal constellation, connecting the Holocaust to French colonialism and American anti-Black racism. Some are written by Germans about the Holocaust or about legacies of colonialism in other countries. Others are written by French or American authors who speak out about the Holocaust and their own respective national legacies of colonialism and slavery. However, we would first want to acquire a firm historical basis with regard to the Holocaust, differentiate between history and memory, and finally, understand the key ideas presented in Michael Rothberg’s introductory chapter of Multidirectional Memory. From there, we would decenter ethnocentric bias in German and French texts before turning to American texts, since it may be easier initially to pick up on ethnocentric bias in texts from other cultures. The starting point to the course is a unit on conceptualizing the human and human rights particularly for the stateless and the persecuted.

260  L. HANSEN

The unit’s texts include Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism (in its entirety or in sections) along with Anna Seghers’s Transit (1944), written during Segher’s exile in Mexico, and finally, doctrines ratified in the immediate post-war years concerning human rights. These texts represent a variety of genres, time periods, and contexts. Arendt’s text foregrounds the past crimes of National Socialism and of colonial regimes in order to conceptualize human rights in the wake of imperial violence. The guiding question for this unit is how her text reflects ongoing debates about definitions of the human and human rights as they were discursively taking shape in the immediate post-war years. To that end, we would read Arendt’s work along the founding tenets in the Charter of the United Nations signed in 1945 or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) that marked an international commitment to a new world order that promotes peace and the protection of human rights. Seghers’s Transit would complete this cluster of texts, providing a literary perspective of a displaced individual during WWII. Explicit reference to the Holocaust is absent, yet Seghers, during the time of her own displacement in Mexico, captures the desperation of those she left behind trying to escape Europe as fascism unfolded across the continent. The Charter of the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide historical context to the works by Arendt and Seghers. After WWII, the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set a precedent for supranational relations that prioritize humanity over national sovereignty and the potential for tyrannical abuse under the banner of sovereignty. The next unit expands upon Rothberg’s approach of bringing the Holocaust into conversation with colonial pasts and slavery. In this unit, the goals are to use texts that speak to colonialist pasts of European empires in order to facilitate multidirectional critical thinking among students. The texts for the unit are Aime Cesaire’s Discourse on Colonialism (1950), excerpts from Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks (1952), and Barbara Honigmann’s Soharas Reise (1998). These German and French authors speak indirectly to one another, bringing disparate historical events into a dialogue. In the case of the French texts (Cesaire and Fanon), the authors examine French complicity with the Nazi regime, via the Vichy regime, while at the same time assessing the violence of French colonial legacy in Martinique and Algeria. Moreover, Cesaire and Fanon compare European anti-Semitism as a precursor to the Holocaust to anti-Black racism in Europe and the United States. These works,

14  MULTIDIRECTIONAL MEMORY AS DECOLONIAL PEDAGOGICAL … 

261

by no means an exhaustive list, help tease out not only the different perspectives they bring to ongoing debates about the Holocaust and to our classrooms, but also how their authors’ respective backgrounds influence their approach to Holocaust memory. As mentioned above, implementing multidirectional memory as pedagogy requires a decolonial lens, which ultimately includes the learner themselves as reader, interpreter, and critic, who thereby participates in Holocaust memory. To that end, in the third and final unit, students turn to texts produced within and for the American context—including lesser-known texts and popular works they may have read or viewed earlier on in their schooling that may perpetuate and/or resist what scholars have termed the “Americanization of the Holocaust” (Flanzbaum 1999; Rosenfeld 1995). To briefly explain, pop culture and national curricula have played an undeniable role in the ubiquity of the Holocaust and have shaped American national consciousness. Marvin Chomsky’s television mini-series Holocaust (1978), Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List (1993), and the multiple iterations of The Diary of Anne Frank are just a few of the most prominent examples that represent the Holocaust to specifically American audiences. Critics have pointed out that Spielberg’s film focuses on the role of the liberator/rescuer at the expense of the Holocaust’s victims (Cole 1999, p. 78; Rosenfeld 1995, pp. 38–39). The various theatrical, cinematic, and textual renditions of The Diary of Anne Frank have, in spite of its somber ending, employed Anne Frank’s story as one of optimism and perseverance, thereby “sugar coating” the Holocaust (Flanzbaum 1999, p. 3). The sensational success of Americanproduced films, books, or plays about the Holocaust is rooted in their ability to appeal to the American market, the audience’s sensibilities, and its desire for an uplifting, triumphant ending. Experiences with secondary educational curricula together with pop culture and other factors inform student perceptions of the Holocaust upon entering university. It is crucial to take popular texts into account when gauging what students already know about the Holocaust prior to entering university. In fact, before reading/viewing lesser-known American texts, students could critically revisit the ones they may be familiar with from their school years, such as The Diary of Anne Frank or, more recent, Elie Wiesel’s Night. Doing so not only familiarizes our international students with such texts but could also generate productive conversations about historical and textual content used in education

262  L. HANSEN

curricula in other parts of the world that may or may not focus on the Holocaust. Below I will introduce two more recent works from the United States as well as examples of classroom discussions and at-home assignments. Marione Ingram’s 2015 memoir Hands of Peace and Stephen Hopkins’ 2016 film biography of Jesse Owens, Race, are more recent examples that starkly contrast with the more well-known examples mentioned above. Though often still employing sensational strategies to appeal to the audience’s emotions, they implicate US history and culture into Holocaust memory in a less sanguine manner by drawing America’s problematic past into conversation with the German past. These examples paradoxically foreground the American viewpoint for the purpose of questioning its very frame. They, in turn, unravel ethnocentric portrayals of the United States as a key historical player before, during, and after the Holocaust. It would make sense to read/view them after the popular texts and films in order to assess possible trends over the years in American engagements in Holocaust memory. In Hands of Peace, the first-person German-Jewish female narrator gives an outsider’s perspective on the United States, particularly the South, in the post-war, Jim Crow era. Having survived the Holocaust in hiding and later emigrating to the United States, Ingram recounts her political activism in the Civil Rights struggle of the 1960s. Ingram thereby draws anti-Black racism in the United States into uncomfortable proximity to Nazi German anti-Semitism at the same time that she models solidarity among disparate national and racial groups in the wake of the Holocaust. Stephen Hopkins, in his film Race, likewise provides an interconnected, transnational historical perspective but situated in the times leading up to the Second World War and the Holocaust. Race, through the context of sports, depicts the opportunity in the 1930s for the United States to intervene in the increasingly violent tactics of the Nazi regime by boycotting its Olympic games. However, given that this snarl between politics and sports is filtered through the biography of Jesse Owens, a Black American, the film emphasizes the contradictions of the United States’ attempt to posture itself as morally righteous. The moral dilemma culminates in a decision between individualist opportunism or collective sensibilities. Jesse Owens must decide to use his talent to compete in the games or, for the sake of principle, boycott the games on behalf of African Americans and, by extension of solidarity, of Jews in Nazi Germany. The following sample of in-class discussion and at-home

14  MULTIDIRECTIONAL MEMORY AS DECOLONIAL PEDAGOGICAL … 

263

assignments to the film Race is based on three key scenes. In the first scene, national identity and principles are at stake as the American Olympics Committee votes on whether to boycott the Olympic Games in Nazi Germany. For this scene, students would write responses on the various arguments presented in the film. Afterward, we would collect these arguments on the board and discuss what is at stake and for whom if the US decides to compete in the Olympics or not. This activity can be expanded by reading supplementary newspaper materials from the United States and/or Germany at the time in which such debates took place. Shortly after the committee debate scene, we see how the discussions within national institutions of power filter through the interest group NAACP into Jesse Owen’s domestic sphere. In this scene, Jesse’s racial and his professional identities confront one another, and he must decide whether to compete in the Olympics. For homework, students will write a reflection paper that explains and explores the dilemma that Jesse faces by outlining and weighing the arguments to compete and not to compete. In addition to or instead of this assignment, students could write the NAACP letter that Jesse is presented within this scene in order to practice a formal and persuasive type of writing. Both assignments allow students to think critically about a difficult decision among equally persuasive viewpoints. Next, we witness how Jesse’s initial decision not to compete leads to a heated argument about race with his coach. In this powerful scene, their relationship undergoes a rupture, since until this point in the film, both men engage with one another under an unspoken norm of colorblindness. After this scene, three groups in the classroom will concentrate one of the three scenes to discuss a set of questions related to their scene, for example: What are the motives and interests of the actors in the scene? How, if at all, do the Jews as an oppressed group in Nazi Germany play a role in your scene, and what are appeals for solidarity with them, if any? We will compare the debates within these three settings and the various levels that they represent. For homework, students are to draw a mind map in which they are situated at the center. They will then sketch their connections to identities, groups, roles they play in their everyday lives. They will then write about the extent to which they, as individuals, are accountable to those identities, groups, and roles. Should we act on their behalf, out of principle, even if that directly conflicts with our own personal interests?

264  L. HANSEN

Reading Ingram’s memoir in conjunction with Hopkins’s film raises questions for classroom discussion regarding how they connect anti-Semitism in Germany with anti-Black racism in the United States and broach timely topics in our current political climate. Reading them after the popular examples from Spielberg, for instance, helps students chart development of Holocaust memory in the realms of art and entertainment in the United States and how they each implicate us in different ways as viewers/readers. Are Hopkins’ and Ingram’s examples representative of a broader trend in Holocaust memory in the United States that foreground the American frame of reference in order to present a more nuanced perspective of its involvement in Holocaust memory? If so, how can we explain a shift from melodramatic renditions of Anne Frank’s story and trope of hero/liberator in The Holocaust and Schindler’s List, on the one hand, to multidirectional texts that interconnect histories and present models for solidarity, on the other? These would be core questions for students to explore at the end of the unit after having read the texts, written short reflection papers, journal entries, etc., and after having participated in class discussion supported by their written assignments.

4  Conclusion My reading of multidirectionality as decolonial seeks to complicate frames of reference in texts about the Holocaust. As a result of its comparative methodology, implementing multidirectional memory would meet formidable challenges when implemented as pedagogical practice. Scholars from a wide range of fields related to Holocaust education, such as sociology, history, cultural studies, German Studies, have long debated the efficacy of their disciplinary approaches to teaching about the Holocaust. One major tension in the field of Holocaust Education is between historical and sociological perspectives that emphasize learning about and from the Holocaust, respectively. As sociological approaches to the Holocaust become more commonplace than the historical (Gray 2014), those who teach about the Holocaust are likely to emphasize the lessons to draw from the Holocaust in relation to our contemporary society (Eckmann 2010; Riley et al. 2011). However, as Cole and others (Eckmann 2010; Gray 2014) point out, extracting lessons from the past can be problematic:

14  MULTIDIRECTIONAL MEMORY AS DECOLONIAL PEDAGOGICAL … 

265

It is easy to project the lessons demanded by the present back into the past, and rewrite it in such terms. […] When the lessons become more important than the history, the tendency is for the complexity of the past to be reduced to a number of rather banal statements designed merely to meet the needs of the present. That is one of the great dangers with the ‘Holocaust.’ Given its mythical status, the ‘Holocaust’ risks becoming a popular past used to serve all sorts of present needs. In particular, the needs of contemporary liberalism tend to latch onto a powerful tale in the past and universalise it so as to produce a set of universal lessons. (Cole 1999, p. 42)

Critics who take up the “learn about” side of these discussions may therefore easily equate multidirectional memory in the classroom to pluralism or relativization because it situates the Holocaust and its developing post-war collective memory alongside other contemporaneous and contemporary events. In spite of valid arguments for separate and unique treatment of Holocaust, an undercurrent of memory in varying forms, via political activism or literature, has long made (and still does make) such connections and associations. Arguing that this simply should not be is prescriptive and thus in itself colonial in its attempt to maintain a stronghold on how individuals are supposed to engage with the Holocaust. My proposed course takes a descriptive approach to texts that connect Holocaust memory to other memory narratives, whether one is for or against such connections. Only after exploring what is and has been developing with regard to Holocaust memory over the decades, would there be sufficient grounds to proceed, if the instructor so chooses, with prescriptive/argumentative evaluation of these connections. To be sure, I am not suggesting that multidirectional memory should be the ultimate one-size-fits-all approach to teaching about the Holocaust. One certainly can and should explore the Holocaust itself, its preconditions, and its effects from a historical point of view. In fact, learning the facts of the Holocaust is a crucial prerequisite to exploring its boundless implications for trauma studies, theology, political science, historiography, art, and education. The field of Holocaust education has thus far consisted of multiple and contradictory curricular outcomes that are germane to insular disciplines. Based on the relatively new and interdisciplinary field of Memory Studies, multidirectional memory presents a compelling methodology for courses about Holocaust memory. To that end, I put forth a decolonial option that draws attention to ourselves as producers and receivers of Holocaust memory.

266  L. HANSEN

References Barthes, Roland. 1986. “To Write: An Intransitive Verb?” In The Rustle of Language, translated by Richard Howard, 11–21. New York: Hill and Wang. Bond, Lucy. 2014. “Types of Transculturality: Narrative Frameworks and the Commemoration of 9/11.” In The Transcultural Turn: Interrogating Memory Between and Beyond Borders, edited by Lucy Bond and Jessica Rapson, 61–82. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. Clendinnen, Inga. 1999. Reading the Holocaust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cole, Tim. 1999. Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How History Is Bought, Packaged, and Sold. New York: Routledge. Dolgoy, Rebecca Clare, and Jerzy Elżanowski. 2018. “Working Through the Limits of Multidirectional Memory: Ottawa’s Memorial to the Victims of Communism and National Holocaust Monument.” Citizenship Studies 22 (4): 433–51. Eckmann, Monique. 2010. “Exploring the Relevance of Holocaust Education for Human Rights Education.” Prospects 40: 7–16. Flanzbaum, Hilene. 1999. The Americanization of the Holocaust. Greenbelt, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Gray, Michael. 2014. Contemporary Debates in Holocaust Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Leshem, Dan. 2018. “Introduction: Humanistic Pedagogy Across the Disciplines—Approaches to Mass Atrocity Education in the Community College Context.” In Humanistic Pedagogy Across the Disciplines: Approaches to Mass Atrocity Education in the Community College Context, edited by Amy E. Traver and Dan Leshem, 1–21. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Marcuse, Harold. 2012. Review of Multidirectional Memory: Remembering the Holocaust in the Age of Decolonization, by Michael Rothberg. The American Historical Review 117 (3 June): 820–21. Mignolo, Walter. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Morris, Marla. 2001. Curriculum and the Holocaust: Competing Sites of Memory and Representation. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Novick, Peter. 2000. The Holocaust in American Life. Boston: Mariner. Pearce, Andy. 2017. “The Holocaust in the National Curriculum After 25 years.” Holocaust Studies 23 (3): 231–62. Riley, Karen, Elizabeth Washington, and Emma Humphries. 2011. “Facing History and Ourselves: Noble Purpose, Unending Controversy.” In Teaching and Studying Social Issues: Major Programs and Approaches, edited by Samuel Totten and Jon Pederson. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

14  MULTIDIRECTIONAL MEMORY AS DECOLONIAL PEDAGOGICAL … 

267

Rosenfeld, Alfred H. 1995. “The Americanization of the Holocaust.” Commentary 99 (6): 35–41. Rothberg, Michael. 2009. Multidirectional Memory: Remembering the Holocaust in the Age of Decolonization. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Steinweis, Alan E. 1999. “Reflections on the Holocaust from Nebraska.” In The Americanization of the Holocaust, edited by Hilene Flanzbaum, 167–80. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Terdiman, Richard. 1993. Present Past: Modernity and the Memory Crisis. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. White, Hayden. 1992. “Historical Emplotment and the Problem of Truth.” In Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the “Final Solution”, edited by Saul Friedländer, 37–53. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

CHAPTER 15

“Please Don’t Gender Me!” Strategies for Inclusive Language Instruction in a Gender-Diverse Campus Community Angineh Djavadghazaryans

“Please don’t gender me!” I was not necessarily shocked when a colleague reported a student saying this on the first day of a first semester German language class before storming out of the classroom never to return. Foreign language instructors increasingly face challenges in the classroom that arise through structures inherent in highly gendered languages. Many languages assign humans a gender based on a rigid binary gender system, which reflects patriarchy, heterosexism, and gender normativity. Therefore, language instruction is often one of the spaces in which these power structures are reinforced. In grammatically gendered languages, the correct use of pronouns, possessive adjectives, adjective endings, or declensions depends on gendering the person addressed. Moreover, these grammatical notions reflect a male–female binary that excludes gender neutrality or fluidity. German, for example, distinguishes all its nouns with gendered articles.

A. Djavadghazaryans (*)  Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_15

269

270  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS

Moreover, gendered endings specify the gender of nouns referring to people, e.g., the female student vs. the male student, the female doctor vs. the male doctor, the female partner vs. the male partner, etc. Grammatical gender, cognition, and sociocultural processes influence one another. Thus, these notions of grammatical gender of languages such as German raise the question how these gendered structures and the instruction of these grammatical binaries affect students, in particular gender nonconforming students, in our language classes. The lack of gender-neutral terminology, including gendered nouns and pronouns, for example, may create situations in which students are faced with being gendered against their will. In this process, nonbinary students’ identities are not only violated but literally erased by subjecting them to the binary of male–female. Thus, teaching a grammatically gendered language in its normative language patterns without considering its effects on gender nonconforming students creates an exclusionary classroom environment and also neglects to acknowledge that gender nonbinary communities are part of the target language community. Therefore, teaching students authentic conceptions of new sociocultural developments in the target language needs to include nonbinary language. The question arises how such gendered notions can be addressed successfully in order to create an inclusive environment for all of our students in a language classroom. While some languages are now introducing gender-neutral vocabulary and pronouns, language instructors may face difficulties trying to employ these in their classrooms. In many languages, the new terminology has not yet been officially adopted into the language and is barely known beyond the gender nonbinary community within that language. Moreover, most language textbooks and teaching materials are not yet incorporating these new linguistic developments. Language instructors are oftentimes unaware or uncertain whether gender-neutral conventions exist and what strategies are available to address the concerns of grammatical gender in regard to inclusivity. The lack of awareness of the connection between grammatical and social gender and its effects on nonbinary students as well as the limited efforts to address these challenges lead to an absence of inclusive vocabulary and teaching materials, while reinforcing heteronormative stereotypical binary assumptions on gender and sexuality, perpetuating potentially sexist and exclusionary classroom practices, as well as teaching strategies that can easily become offensive and violating to gender nonconforming students. Thus, we need to develop strategies that can be incorporated in

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

271

language classrooms to create safe spaces for students while still allowing for effective pedagogical instruction. This chapter will identify challenges for gendered language instruction and outline the experiences of nonbinary students in language classrooms as well as discuss linguistic perspectives on grammatical and social gender to highlight the importance of capturing the nuances of grammatical gender in our teaching. Additionally, I will suggest practical strategies for gender awareness in the classroom that will allow us to write syllabi, prepare materials and classroom activities, and have interactions with our students that enable more inclusive language instruction in spite of the rigid gender binaries inherent in the structure of the language we teach. It is important to point out that there are no perfect solutions that will allow us to erase gender binaries in our language classes. Thus, the goal is not to provide ideal scenarios; rather, this chapter intends to increase awareness of how these rigid language structures affect our language classrooms and thus our students and introduce strategies that will help us respect diverse campus communities.

1  Grammatical Gender and Social Gender The first important step is to stop looking at grammatical gender and social gender as separate entities. Rather, we need to understand the connections between them and be aware how the former influences the latter. Research has shown that the acquisition of a new language broadens our perspective and the ways in which we view the world. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf developed the principle of linguistic relativity, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or Whorfianism, that states that the structure of a language determines or greatly influences the modes of thought and behavior characteristic of the culture in which it is spoken (Whorf 1956).1 New takes on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis look at the connection between grammatical gender and cognition. Ursula Doleschal and Sonja Schmid (2001), for example, asked how the generic masculine tends to be interpreted. Their study shows

1 The Sapir–Whorf principle is often stated to have two versions, the strong hypothesis or strong view (language determines thought and linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories) and the weak hypothesis or weak view (linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions).

272  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS

that using a masculine noun in a language like Russian usually cues the listener to expect a male referent. Similarly, Uwe Nissen (2002) investigates the aspects of “cultural transfer of gender where the sex of the referent was known or presumed known,” concluding that metaphors or personification of these referents are based on “connotations gender as such conveys” (p. 26). He continues to look at the use of the generic masculine vs. the generic feminine for nouns where the sex of the referent is unknown. Nissen elaborates on the choice of pronoun for occupations such as lawyer (he), dentist (he), or nurse (she) being linked to stereotypical classifications, which are dependent on “pragmatic and societal considerations” (p. 28), such as the status assigned to a particular occupational title,2 as well as time, which can alter perceptions of the occupational title due to societal changes.3 Several studies have shown how grammatical gender influences the way in which speakers perceive inanimate objects (Jacobson 1966; Konishi 1993; Sera et al. 1994). One of the first to suggest that this was the case was Roman Jacobson (1966). He asked Russian-speaking students to personify the days of the week instructing them to “act like Monday” or “act like Wednesday.” What he noticed was that when the students tried to act like Monday, a noun that is grammatically gendered as masculine in Russian, they would act like men and when they were asked to act like Wednesday, a noun that is grammatically gendered as feminine in Russian, they would act like women. Thus, the students’ perception of the noun and the personification of it was determined and consistent with the noun’s grammatical gender. However, when asked why they decided to personify the days of the week in the gendered ways they did, students were unable to explain their decisions explicitly. Jacobson confirmed these findings by pointing at artists and their work questioning why some painters would draw women and other men to personify words such as death, sin, war, etc. Artists with native languages in which death, for example, is grammatically gendered as feminine drew death as a woman while those artists who spoke languages in which 2 Nissen gives the following examples of pronoun choice based on status: secretary (she) vs. Foreign Secretary or Secretary of State (he). 3 Male referents were used for secretary in the nineteenth century and typist at the beginning of the twentieth century, for example, as these occupations were mainly held by men, while today, the generic female referent is used.

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

273

death is denoted as masculine in its grammatical gender drew death as a man (Jacobson 1966). Thus, we are able to predict the personification of nouns based on their grammatical gender in the respective languages. This study allows us to infer that grammatical gender not only influences our thought process and our perception of inanimate objects, but it also shows that we act unconsciously in relation to language structures, suggesting that these language structures become inherent in our perception of the world. Lera Boroditsky et al. (2003) returned to Jacobson’s ideas of how language shapes thought and sought out to expand his findings. They conducted a study, in which they put together a list of twenty-four objects in German and Spanish, picking nouns that had the opposite grammatical gender in the two languages. The study was conducted in English. German and native Spanish speakers were asked to write down the first three adjectives they would use to describe the objects on the list. The list of adjectives was then rated by a third group of native English speakers, organizing the adjectives into two groups: feminine and masculine. Evaluating this study showed that German speakers used adjectives categorized as more masculine for nouns that were grammatically masculine while Spanish speakers used adjectives evaluated as feminine for the same object (which is grammatically feminine in Spanish). For example, German speakers described bridge, which is grammatically gendered as feminine, as “beautiful, elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty, and slender” while Spanish speakers, where the word is grammatically gendered as masculine, described it as “big, dangerous, long, strong, sturdy, and towering” (Boroditsky et al. 2003, p. 70). Similarly, Spanish speakers described the grammatically feminine gendered noun key as “golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny, and tiny,” while the German masculine gendered noun was described as “hard, heavy, jagged, metal, serrated, and useful” (p. 70). This study confirmed that people’s perceptions are influenced by the grammatical gender assigned to nouns in their native languages. In a related study, Boroditsky and Schmidt (2000) also tested whether language affects language-independent thought. With native German and Spanish speakers, they tested whether grammatical gender of a noun in their native language affects memory of word pairs presented in English. The study showed that Spanish and German speakers’ memory for object-name pairs (e.g., apple-Patricia/apple-Patrick, violin-Donald/ violin-Donna) was better for pairs where the gender of the proper name

274  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS

was congruent with the grammatical gender of the object name (in their native language) than when the two genders were incongruent. While grammatical gender may appear to be arbitrary or solely following linguistic reasons and is not necessarily congruent with social gender in all aspects, these studies show that grammatical gender has great influences on perceptions of social gender and affects our mental impression on our worldview through stereotypical assumptions of gender. Grammatical and social gender can therefore not be viewed as two separate, disconnected entities. If we accept this view, we must adjust our teaching practices in ways that recognize how influential grammatical gender is on social gender and how it can affect gender nonconforming students in our foreign language classrooms.

2  The Need for Professional Development and the Importance of Collaboration The first step toward creating inclusive classroom environments in regard to foreign language instruction of grammatically gendered languages is to raise awareness about the importance of inclusive teaching strategies in these classes. In a second step, we need to provide instructors with information about the effects of grammatical gender, the interplay between grammatical gender and social gender, as well as with recourses that are easily accessible to instructors. As mentioned above, many instructors are uncertain about existing conventions in their target language and oftentimes instructors may not be familiar with general terminology and concepts of gender neutrality in English. In order to create inclusive environments in the language classroom, instructors first must be informed and educated about existing conventions in English. Professional development opportunities in collaborations with language departments/programs and university centers/ offices for sexual and gender diversity, for example, offer ways in which instructors can receive general information about gender and sexuality terminology, pronoun use, effects of misgendering, and statistics of academic success/failure in connection to (the lack of) gender inclusivity. These types of information sessions can help instructors think about gender roles and what stereotypes are connected to them and how these are influenced by language. Additionally, these centers will be able to provide information on the sexual and gender diversity of the respective campus community, which will help instructors realize that the likelihood of having gender nonconforming students in classes is much larger than most presume. Lastly,

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

275

such sessions can help us remember that perceptions of femininity and masculinity depend on context as well as change over time and by culture. In our diverse campus communities, we need to be mindful that, beyond our gender nonconforming students, students may come from cultures where the gender binary of male–female is not the norm. Collaborations between language departments/programs and faculty from linguistics can provide insights on linguistic perspectives on grammatical and social gender, which can help broaden our perspectives on how these grammatical structures are connected to, influenced by, and influential in cultural and social conventions of gender. Brainstorming sessions across language programs can help identify challenges that are universal across languages, enable instructors to share ideas, materials, and discuss strategies that take minimal work and are oftentimes easily adapted across languages. In addition to professional development opportunities, departments/programs can proactively provide access to recourse pages. Easily accessible materials on terminology and concepts pertaining to gender and sexuality, information about strategies, links to websites and articles, contact information for centers/offices and/ or experts who can assist, as well as the sharing of inclusive teaching materials create a starting point for instructors who are new to the issues connected with the teaching of grammatically gendered languages.

3  Strategies for Inclusive Teaching in the German Language Classroom Finally, how do we approach inclusive teaching in our language classes such as a beginning German class, where personal conversations about the self, family, friends, etc., are common and expose students to rigid gender binaries in every lesson? While my examples are specific to the German classroom, I believe that they are general enough to be adapted for various other languages and that they can be implemented without the need to create a huge amount of new materials, without having to dismiss textbooks, or without the need of curricular changes. These strategies may seem small and not necessarily groundbreaking; however, I have been using these strategies for the past two years and have received affirmative feedback from students. The first aspect of inclusive teaching for me starts before meeting the students for the first time. I make sure that my syllabus leaves enough room to include discussions about gender binaries in the language,

276  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS

alternative family constellations, vocabulary on sexual orientation, gender-neutral options for referring to human beings, etc. If the institution has a preferred name policy or even a pronoun policy, the information can be easily found for each student on the roster. Looking for preferred names and preferred pronouns prior to the beginning of class is of utmost importance to show respect for students and their identities. However, we need to remind ourselves that not all institutions have policies in place to display information about preferred names and pronouns. Additionally, we need to be aware that information about preferred names and pronouns may not always be accurate. Students may have not updated their information or may have chosen not to display this information publicly. Of course, each student has the right to decide for themselves whether they would like to share information about their preferred gender identity. However, even if a student is not ready to disclose information about their preferred name and/or pronoun, instructors can show respect for all students in their class by establishing inclusivity from the beginning. A student who is not ready to share their gender identity will feel respected and included, even if that occurs in private. One of the most important strategies for me is to include a syllabus statement on grammatical gender on every syllabus. Colleagues across languages at Grinnell College have done important work in this regard by creating a pamphlet called “Languages for Life: Working Towards Gender Inclusivity in the Language Classroom.” This pamphlet includes syllabi statements for various languages on the topic of grammatical gender and its effects on social gender. At Grinnell, all language faculty are required to include a statement on their syllabus. On my syllabi, I include a shortened and slightly adapted version of the Grinnell model: Nouns in German have a gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter) that often does not obey any apparent logic. The German language also assigns humans a gender, and German is not special for having a rigid binary gender system. Pervasive gender normativity is reflected in our use of language, and language instruction is one of the spaces in which such traditional structures are reinforced. At (name of institution) we strive to be respectful and inclusive. Whereas we still need to learn language in its normative form, I encourage you to be aware of the implications of such norms and to be attentive to your classmates’ and instructors’ desires. Please contact me right away should you have any preferred name and/ or pronoun by which you would like to be addressed. Although there are

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

277

limitations to what the language allows grammatically, I am committed to finding solutions that work for all of us.

In addition to including this statement on my syllabi, I email it to the class a few days before the semester starts and ask students to reach out if they are concerned about how grammatical gender will affect them in the classroom and/or if they wish to discuss this further. This allows students to decide whether they would like to share information about their gender identity and gives them a space to do so prior to the beginning of class. It also allows students, who anticipate grammatical gender to affect inclusiveness in the classroom, to voice their concerns in advance. This, in turn, allows me to set up meetings with individual students during which I can discuss in detail what options and strategies are available and also be honest about the limitations of the target language. Not only do these individual meetings help me to avoid misgendering once the class starts, but they also allow me to ask questions about various classroom behavior that could affect a gender nonconforming student. Questions that are important in this context include but are not limited to: “Would you like classmates to be corrected if they misgender you?” “If yes, would you like me to correct them or would you like to correct them yourself?” “Would you like corrections to be made in your absence or only if you are present?” “Would you like your preferred name and/or your pronouns to be used at all times in and outside of the classroom or are there times outside of the classroom in which I should not use them, such as departmental/university events, parents weekend, etc.?” Many challenges can be actively prevented as a direct result of these individual meetings before the beginning of class. Of course, we need to be aware that not all gender nonconforming students will reach out to the instructor before class and that meeting with students does not eliminate all the challenges. However, it is a starting point to show students who do reach out that we care about their concerns and signal to them that their gender identities and their well-being in our classes are of utmost importance. The next challenge arises when we meet students on the first day of class. Most of us probably start the lesson in German and generally we begin a German class by introducing “Ich heiße …” and “Wie heißt du?” Often, day one also introduces vocabulary for “Ich bin der/die Professor/ in” and “Sie sind/du bist ein/e Student/in,” immediately gendering students as a female or a male based on their outer appearance and our

278  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS

stereotypical conceptions of gender. A suggestion of how to avoid this on day one is to use alternative vocabulary. Instead of using gendered forms of the noun student, we can refer to the students by “Studi” or in the plural “Studierende,” those who study. While “der Studi” and “die Studierenden” are grammatically gendered, the noun does not carry a gendered ending and does not distinguish itself in the address of female or male students. Here, grammatical gender is separate from social gender while the nouns “der Student” and “die Studentin” carry both grammatical and social gender indications.4 When discussing the syllabus in English toward the end of day one, I take a few moments to acknowledge and explain gender binaries as well as the limitations of the language. I refer to the syllabus statement once again giving students who may not have read my first email or those who did not reach out before class an opportunity to think about whether gender binaries will affect them and if so, whether they would like to talk to me about possible strategies. I avoid, however, asking questions like “Who thinks this may be an issue for them?” or “Who wants to talk to me about it?” openly in class as this puts students on the spot and may achieve the exact opposite of the desired outcome. I only point out that I am dedicated to finding solutions that work for everyone and that students are welcome to talk to me if they wish. While I am committed to being respectful to all students in regard to their gender identity (and beyond, of course), it is not my place to decide if and when students share their identities with me. By clearly stating my commitment, I am opening the door for students, but the decision ultimately remains with each individual student, which we also must respect. To give students the opportunity to share in private whether they use preferred names and/or pronouns, whether they think that grammatical gender will affect them, and if so, whether they would like to meet with me to discuss possible strategies, I finish day one with a first day questionnaire. Many instructors already give such questionnaires to solicit information about students’ reasons for taking German, whether they have any previous German knowledge, what they know about German culture, etc. My first day questionnaire includes a section on preferred names, pronouns, and concerns about the gender binaries. I include the following 4 If you absolutely want to use the gendered forms, I recommend not correcting gender on day one. We may assume that students are using the “wrong” gender, but students may just as well understand the concept right away and purposely use a particular gendered form.

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

279

four questions on this questionnaire: (1) “As I explained, German is a gendered language (there are masculine, feminine and neuter nouns and pronouns and nouns referring to people use gendered endings). Below, please write your name as it appears on the roster, the name you would like me to call you, as well as the pronouns you would like me to use.” (2) “Do you anticipate that the gendered nature of the language may affect you and/or your gender identity? If yes, do you anticipate this to cause you discomfort and/or to affect your performance in class?” (3) “If you answered yes to the questions above, would you like to meet with me to discuss possible solutions?” (4) “Are you interested in learning about gender-neutral options available in the German language?” On the questionnaire, I include my name, what I would like to be called, and my pronouns both as an example, but more importantly, also to show that I am including myself as part of the classroom community. Collecting this information from the students, I can be prepared and anticipate challenges, contact students individually, and set up meetings if needed, and prepare classroom materials accordingly. It is important to note that this does not mean that inclusive materials should be omitted if no students indicate interest and/or are personally affected. Inclusivity should be our goal no matter whether gender nonconforming students are present or not. However, collecting this information on the questionnaire increases awareness of the specific needs of the particular students in the classroom. Additionally, including such questions on the questionnaire also shows students that I expect everyone in class to respect preferred names and pronouns. It should also be noted that students should be made aware that they can always reach out to me anytime if they were not ready to share information on the first day of classes. Throughout the class, there are many instances that may cause challenges regarding gender binaries that could create potentially exclusionary classroom practices. One of the major challenges for inclusivity in the German language classroom is pronouns. Simply put, pronouns are words that take the place of a noun. Gendered languages such as German use gendered pronouns in agreement with the gender and the case of the noun it replaces.5 They are often so ubiquitous that we rarely think about

5 Many languages do not have gendered pronouns, rather, they refer to a 3rd person s­ingular without specifying the person’s gender. Examples are Māori, Armenian, Farsi, Finnish, Chinese, among others.

280  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS

them. However, discussing pronouns integrates another way we can harness the power of language to affirm people into our courses. Whether nonbinary people get support has been demonstrated to correlate with levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidality, as well as other markers of well-being such as school completion rates. In the English language, third person pronouns are taught as another binary: he/him and she/ her, and we are taught to read and interpret gender expressions and assign binary pronouns to people. But nonbinary options exist and the use of them has become very common in our student population. Ze and hir/zir was created by trans people, and they is repurposed and treated as plural in regard to the conjugation of the verb but is followed by a singular predicate noun: “They are a gardener.” There are many more sets of pronouns, ze and hir/zir and they/them are the most prevalent on our campus among students and staff/faculty. Familiarizing oneself with gender-neutral pronouns in English as well as which pronouns are common in the respective campus community is an important first step toward inclusivity in the German classroom. We may use English in class, during meetings, at events, etc., in which we refer to students with pronouns (such as an introduction of a student at an event, for example). The first step toward respecting gender nonconforming students in the German classroom and being comfortable with offering gender-neutral options in German to our students is to respect their pronoun use in English. The German language does now have gender-neutral options that have been introduced by and are common in the trans community in Germany.6 Just like English, German has several sets of gender-neutral pronouns. The most commonly used and most developed throughout the cases appears to be xier (Xier geht heute einkaufen) while x, nin, seis, sei, sif, and sier are lesser known options. Trans communities in Germany

6 The following information on gender-neutral language options in German has been collected from various sources (Fachhochschule Dortmund, Fischer, Gerwerkschaft, Erziehung und Wissenschaft, Heger, Hochschule Emden-Leer, Hochschule Hanover, Ursinger, Weltenschmiede) to put together an overview of the different suggestions that have been made. While I attempted to collect the options that appear to be most commonly suggested, I do not claim that these are the only existing options. As these language patterns have not been officially adapted into the language, there exist no universally accepted options and new language forms are still emerging. However, I hope that this overview can serve as a starting point for a discussion on gender-neutral language in German as a whole.

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

281

Table 1 Pronouns Personal pronouns

Singular

1st person 2nd person 3rd person

Possessive pronouns

Nominative

Accusative

Dative

ich du er sie es xier x nin seis sei sif sier they

mich dich ihn sie ihn xien x nin

mir dir ihm ihr ihm xiem x nim

sei sin sien them

seim sim siem them

mein dein sein ihr sein xies xs

their

Credit Author

Table 2  Possessive pronoun xier and its case endings

Nominativ Akkusativ Dativ Genitiv

maskulin

feminin

neutrum

generalium

sein seinen, seine seinem, seiner seines, seiner

ihr ihren, ihre ihrem, ihrer ihres, ihrer

sein seinen, seine seinem, seiner seines, seiner

xies xiesen, xiese xiesem, xieser xieses, xieser

Credit Author

also report the use of the English pronoun they (They geht heute einkaufen). Table 1 shows the breakdown of the pronouns with their available forms in the cases as well as the possessive pronouns/adjectives. As Table 2 shows, the possessive pronoun xier takes endings based on the gender of the noun that follows. What appears not yet fully developed is what endings these possessive pronouns take when the following noun is used in gender-neutral form. Alternative suggestions have been made to use the endings ir/in/im/is (Ich gebe es xiesim Freund*) or ör/ ön/öm/ös (Ich gebe es xiesöm Freund*) and to use the Genderstern to indicate gender neutrality of the noun. Other suggestions for indicating

282  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS Table 3  Gender-neutral definite articles

Nominativ Akkusativ Dativ Genitiv

maskulin

feminin

neutrum

generalium

plural

der den dem des

die die der der

das das dem des

dier/xieser dien/xiesen diem/xiesem dies/xieses

die die den der

Credit Author

gender neutrality of the noun are the use of the BinnenI (Ich gebe es xiesim FreundIn) or the Gender_gap (Ich gebe es xiesim Freund_in). Additionally, dier and xieser have been introduced as gender-neutral options for the definite article and relative pronoun (Table 3). However, it should be noted that using xieser as a definite article may result in misinterpretations of its meaning due to identical forms of the possessive pronoun xies. When using the gender-neutral article, the noun following the article is marked with the Genderstern, the BinnenI, or the Gender_gap to indicate gender neutrality of the noun (dier Student*, dier StudentIn, dier Studen_in).7 While these options exist, it remains difficult for many instructors to fully incorporate them into their class since universally accepted sets of pronouns, articles, etc., do not exist yet, information we find online may be incomplete, incorrect, or even contradictory. Additionally, if we can find reliable information, a full incorporation may require major changes in the curriculum, uses of textbooks, materials, etc., which may not be possible for everyone for various reasons. However, we need to make students aware that these options exist, introduce them through supplementary materials, for example, by providing handouts that give an overview of these options so that interested students have the information available. Whether we are able to include full lessons on gender-neutral pronoun options or whether we can only introduce them as supplemental materials, we have to step away from the stance: “There are no options! This is what it is.” We have to acknowledge that gender-­neutral language has been introduced into the German language and that this social development is just as much part of the German culture as any other sociocultural topic that we teach. 7 What appears to be missing in its entirety are declensions for gender-neutral adjective endings.

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

283

Another way to incorporate and model the use of nonbinary pronouns could be to make them the default whenever talking about people who are not part of the class. Since we mostly talk to our students and they talk to each other yet we talk about other people (characters in the textbook, for example), this strategy models that we should not make assumptions about gender based on names or outer appearance. Another model could be to make gender-neutral pronouns the default for everyone in class, and have students opt into gendered pronouns, instead of having students opt out of them. This way we shift the norm in our class, which is something more in our control than language conventions at large. Instead of being reactive to nonbinary students, we are active in creating inclusive classrooms no matter who our students are. No matter how much or little an instructor is able to incorporate gender-neutral pronouns in the class materials, there are a few things that can be done without major changes to materials, such as, for example, the inclusion of alternative vocabulary. It should be given that we all incorporate vocabulary for sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, alternative partnerships/family constellations, etc.8 While we certainly need to include the normative language patterns that use gendered nouns to refer to people, we should include and try to use general terms over specifics. General ways in which we can avoid gendering is to use nouns that refer to the group and its attributes such as Studierende (people who study) rather than StudentIn, Lehrende (people who teach) or with the use of the suffix-kraft for job titles such as Lehrkraft rather than LehrerIn, Arbeitskraft instead of ArbeiterIn, etc. It also has been suggested to replace-mann/-frau in job titles with-person such as Bürokaufperson instead of Berükaufmann/Bürokauffrau. Additionally, some suggestions have been made as alternatives for titles such as Herr and Frau: Ind. Meyer (short for Individuum) or Pers. Meyer (short for Person) instead of Herr/Frau Meyer. The online gender dictionary Geschickt Gendern-Das Genderwörterbuch suggests many additional ways in which we can avoid gendered nouns and provides a long list of suggested substitutions for gendered nouns as well as gender-inclusive writing strategies. Another way to avoid unnecessary gendering is to give gender-neutral directions, both in class and on assignments/handouts. Instead of telling 8 This can help us prevent and accurately respond to extreme situations such as one that a colleague once encountered in which a student asked: “Why do we need to learn the plural form of mother? There are no two mothers in a family!”

284  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS

students “Arbeiten Sie mit einem Partner/einer Partnerin” (work with a male/female partner), using alternative vocabulary such as “Arbeiten Sie mit einer anderen Person” (work with another person), “Arbeiten Sie zusammen” (work together),“Arbeiten Sie in Paaren” (work in pairs), or “Arbeiten Sie zu zweit” (work in groups of two) creates a more inclusive classroom. One last area that we need to pay attention to is homework and class corrections. Here are two examples of a homework assignment for which students are asked to write about their (dream)partners: Sofie writes: Meine Partnerin ist freundlich. Sie hört gern Musik. My (feminine ending) (female) partner is friendly. She likes to listen to music. Christoph writes: Mein Partnerin ist freundlich. Er hört gern Musik. My (masculine ending) (female) partner is friendly. He likes to listen to music.

As you see, there is a mix of gendered forms within the sentences that do not agree in grammatical gender. Unfortunately, oftentimes corrections of such sentences look like the following: Sofie writes: Meine Partnerin ist freundlich. Sie Er hört gern Musik. My ( male ending) (female male) partner is friendly. She He likes to listen to music. Christoph writes: Meine Partnerin ist freundlich. Er Sie hört gern Musik. My (masculine female ending) (female) partner is friendly. He She likes to listen to music.

Corrections are made based on heteronormative assumptions on gender and sexual orientation. Instead of making corrections based on such assumptions, I return the homework assignment with a short note: “Hi Christoph, you are using a combination of masculine and feminine endings and pronouns when referring to your partner. Would you mind sharing your partner’s gender identification/pronoun use? I want to make sure that going forward I give you the correct feedback on grammar.” Students generally willingly share the information and appreciate being asked, which allows me not to make any gender assumptions yet still provide the students with meaningful grammatical corrections.

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

285

4  Conclusion There are certainly many more situations, topics, materials, etc., in a German language classroom that require us to think about such strategies for inclusive teaching. The above examples of strategies do not reflect a complete list of necessary changes nor do they provide absolute solutions to the problem that grammatically gendered languages like German create in a classroom environment in regard to inclusivity. However, these strategies and suggestions are first steps toward inclusivity. These strategies do not require major changes in the curriculum, dismissal of existing textbooks, or the creation of an unmanageable amount of new materials. While additional issues certainly need to be addressed with other teaching strategies, the least these above-mentioned suggestions accomplish is to show students that we acknowledge the limitations of gendered languages and their effects on nonbinary students in our classrooms. It is important to signal our commitment to making an effort to be as inclusive as possible albeit the normative structure of the language we teach. There are many different ways to attend to diversity and inclusion in German Studies. Paying attention to and eliminating exclusive language patterns is one way to create an inclusive environment by addressing oppressive power structures. My own teaching has benefited greatly from including these strategies in my language classroom. Not only has it created a more inclusive environment for all students, but it also has expanded my awareness of diversity and inclusion. By paying attention to these nuances, I have been faced with the violent nature of exclusionary language. To borrow Toni Morrison’s words, “oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge” (Morrison 1993, n.p.). Attending to issues of exclusionary language patterns has allowed me to understand how these normative language patterns contributed to limiting my knowledge of diversity and inclusion as a whole. In turn, I have gained access to recognize a variety of diversity matters that are problematic in textbooks, teaching materials, and teaching approaches, prompting change in many other aspects of my teaching and increasing inclusivity in all matters.

286  A. DJAVADGHAZARYANS

References Boroditsky, Lera, and Lauren A. Schmidt. 2000. “Sex, Syntax, and Semantics.” Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 21: 84–89. Boroditsky, Lera, Lauren Schmidt, and Webb Phillips. 2003. “Sex, Syntax, and Semantics.” In Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition, edited by D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow, 61–80. Cambridge: MIT Press. Doleschal, Ursula, and Sonja Schmid. 2001. “Russian. Doing Gender in Russian: Structure and Perspective.” In Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men. Vol. 1, edited by Marlis Hellinger and Hadumod Bußmann, 253–82. IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Fachhochschule Dortmund. “Leitfaden. Geschlechtergerechte Sprache.” Accessed 9 January 2019. https://www.fhdortmund.de/de/hs/Gleichstellung/medien/ Leitfaden_geschlechtergerechte_Sprache.pdf. Fischer, Beatrice. “Sprache. Macht. Geschlecht.” Accessed 18 April 2019. http://www.migrazine.at/artikel/sprache-macht-geschlecht. “Gerwerkschaft, Erziehung und Wissenschaft. Geschlechterbewusste Sprache.” Accessed 9 January 2019. https://www.gew.de/geschlechterbewusste-sprache/ sprache. Grinnell College. “Languages for Life: Working Towards Gender Inclusivity in the Language Classroom.” Accessed 2 October 2017. https://www.grinnell. edu/languages-life. Heger, Anna. “Pronomen ohne Geschlecht 1.0.” Accessed 18 April 2019. https://annaheger.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/pronomen-ohne-geschlecht. ———. “Pronomen ohne Geschlecht 1.0.” Accessed 18 April 2019. https:// annaheger.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/pronomen-ohne-geschlecht-2-0. ———. “Transkription: Zine: Xier packt xiesen Koffer.” Accessed 18 April 2019. https://annaheger.wordpress.com/pronomen/transkription/#personalp. Hochschule Emden-Leer. “Leitfaden geschlechtergerechte Sprache.” Accessed 9 January 2019. https://uol.de/fileadmin/user_upload/sport/download/allgemein/Leitfaden_geschlechtergerechte_Sprache.pdf. Hochschule Hanover. “Geschlechtergerechte Sprache in Wort und Bild- ein Leitfaden.” Accessed 9 January 2019. https://www.hshannover.de/fileadmin/ media/img/pp/service/HsH-Leitfaden_geschlechtergerechte_Sprache.pdf. Jacobson, Roman. 1966. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, edited by A. Brower, 232–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Konishi, T. 1993. “The Semantics of Grammatical Gender: A Cross-Cultural Study.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22 (5): 519–34. Morrison, Toni. 1993. Nobel Prize Lecture, December 7.

15  “PLEASE DON’T GENDER ME!” STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE … 

287

Nissen, Uwe. 2002. “Aspects of Translating Gender.” Linguistic Online 11 (2): 25–37. Sera, M., C. Berge, and J. del Castillo. 1994. “Grammatical and Conceptual Forces in the Attribution of Gender by English and Spanish Speakers.” Cognitive Development 9 (3): 261–92. Ursinger, Johanna. “Geschickt Gendern. Das Genderwörterbuch.” Accessed 12 January 2019. https://geschicktgendern.de. Weltenschmiede. “Er, sie, xier, nin: Genderneutrale Pronomen.” Accessed 3 October 2017. https://weltenschmiede.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/ gastartikel-er-sie-xier-nin-genderneutrale-pronomen. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, edited by J. B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

CHAPTER 16

Intersectionality and Notions of Diversity in the Internationalized German Studies Program at the University of Melbourne Daniela Müller

There has never been such a thing as a closed and homogeneous ­student cohort. Instead, instructors face diverse student groups comprised of individuals whose personalities consist of intersecting identities, statuses, personal goals, and motivations. This paper proposes broad-based approaches to diversity, which focus on the intersections in students’ identity. I suggest pedagogical strategies for language instructors, which consider the complexities in students’ diversity and discuss how they can be applied in a teaching environment for foreign language instruction that has been—in recent years—profoundly transformed through the internationalization of student cohorts by the so-called Melbourne Model of curriculum reform. As a result, instructors face student groups, which are increasingly diverse in terms of their academic preparation, aspirations, cultural background, and socioeconomic status (James 2002). Within the Australian tertiary education system, however, there seems

D. Müller (*)  School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_16

289

290  D. MÜLLER

to be still a limited perception of student diversity that mainly refers to the country of origin, categorizing students as international or domestic. Those terms are common generalizations, which subsume all Australian students under domestic, while the term international student is mostly used as a denomination for Asian students—and within this heterogeneous group for students from mainland China—that form today the majority of international students within the Australian university landscape (O’Hanlon 2018). Such simplistic distinctions between national and international students are problematic because they obscure more complex diversities and intersectionalities. In this article, I will question such one-dimensional understandings of student diversity. I will be looking at German language instruction at the University of Melbourne where the binary categorization of students into domestic and international gained new significance with the introduction of the Melbourne Model. This reform was introduced in 2008 to align Australian higher education with international models and to internationalize academic programs and degree structures. By adopting elements of the North American pattern of four-year arts or science degrees followed by graduate studies along with aspects of the Bologna Model as the European standard with its three-year undergraduate program, two-year Master’s degree, and a three-year doctoral program, the new standardized Melbourne degree structure was supposed to make graduates more competitive for the global economy (“The University of Melbourne Strategic Plan 2015–2020”). The first section of this chapter discusses the impacts of the Melbourne Model on the student cohort at the University of Melbourne. Under this model, some academic fields benefited more in terms of enrolment than others did. Language studies in particular recorded a greater interest among international students, who major in other fields than arts. The restructuring of the curricula in languages within the model also attracted more domestic students majoring in other fields, too. As I show, the Melbourne Model did not only increase the number of international students. It also led to greater diversity within the language classroom in terms of students’ cultural backgrounds, fields of study, and learning motivations. My observations intend to help language instructors to reflect about diversity and decolonialization in novel ways by taking into account student difference and intersectionality. In the second section, I develop a model for assessing these different diversity dimensions and their intersectionalities. I follow the concept

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

291

of intersectional identity by Crenshaw (1989) and Davis (2008), and the diversity dimensions by Thomas and May (2010) and will provide an overview of the diverse dimensions, which foreign language teachers should consider. Emphasizing the differences between national and international students often overlooks and erases the more complex diversities and intersectionalities that might be more important to understand. One-dimensional and static perceptions of identity, as well as binary divides and oversimplifications, are not helpful for devising teaching strategies for an increasingly diverse student population. To address and acknowledge diversity, I will discuss approaches for teaching heterogeneous students through a student-centered view, specifically one focused on motivation. Identifying students’ extrinsic and intrinsic motivations helps to develop personalized learning and to foster student-centered teaching approaches that acknowledge their educational, dispositional, circumstantial, and cultural diversities. In the third section, I will discuss specific teaching strategies, which address diversity-related challenges in the foreign language classroom. While many students come from postcolonial education systems historically influenced by Britain, others come from systems outside those education systems. This has profound implications for teaching because there are now a significant number of students who have to learn a foreign language in a language that has not previously been their language of instruction. Strategies involving nonverbals, associative games, and customized teaching materials help to bridge the gap between native and non-native English speakers and ensure that the foreign language classroom provides meaningful experiences for students with heterogeneous backgrounds and experiences. At the same time, such activities and curricular approaches acknowledge students’ anxieties of speaking in the ­target language, especially at the beginning of the semester.

1  Internationalization Through the Melbourne Model and Its Impact on Student Diversity in German Studies Currently almost 40% of the overall students at the University of Melbourne are international students, coming from more than 130 countries, with the majority being non-native English-speaking students (“Facts and Figures”). While the first waves of international ­

292  D. MÜLLER

students in the 1990s came from Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Hong Kong, today the numbers of students coming from India, Vietnam, South Korea, and Brazil are also increasing (O’Hanlon 2018). As a result of the rapid changes in postcolonial societies, there seems to be an increasing desire to study abroad, to which the Melbourne Model with its internationalization process responds. At the University of Melbourne, the overall numbers of international students increased by 10% university-wide since 2013 (“Annual Report 2017”), with the majority coming from mainland China. Mid-2017, the overall number of international students in Australia was 582,000, with Chinese students counting more than 170,000. Victoria alone, where the University of Melbourne is located, is home to over 60,000 students from China, almost 35% of all international students that studied in Victoria in 2015 (O’Hanlon 2018; “Record Number of International Students Studying in Victoria”). In addition to the shift toward a more international student body, there were further changes in the student cohort that resulted from the introduction of the Melbourne Model. The School of Languages and Linguistics, for example, gained a greater inflow of students from other disciplines. Prior to the Melbourne Model, foreign language classes were predominantly attended by arts students. Today the number of students coming from other disciplines, mainly the sciences, has increased significantly. In 2017, there were almost as many science students as Bachelor of Arts students enrolled in German subjects (Table 1). Many students, who major in subjects other than arts (highlighted in red in Table 1), choose foreign language subjects as so-called breadth subjects. These subjects have been developed for the new Melbourne curriculum to expose students to academic fields outside their majors. The idea behind the implementation of breadth subjects has been to instruct them on how to use techniques and approaches from multiple disciplines on current critical issues and impart a comprehensive general education, a model that is comparable to the idea of the Studium Generale at German universities. By broadening students’ educational experiences and expanding their academic horizons, breadth subjects, the university claims, would enable students to bring a wider range of skills to their future workplaces and provide them with more flexibility to take on the many challenges of a twenty-first-century global work environment (“Breadth”). Asian languages and European foreign language programs at the University of Melbourne have clearly benefited from the curriculum reform. If one looks at the student cohort of German Studies,

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

293

Table 1  Courtesy of Strategy, Planning and Resources, University of Melbourne (2017) *UDQG

'RPHVWLF

,QWHUQDWLRQDO

%DFKHORURI$UWV







%DFKHORURI6FLHQFH







'LSORPDLQ/DQJXDJHV







%DFKHORURI%LRPHGLFLQH







%DFKHORURI&RPPHUFH







%DFKHORURI0XVLF







%DFKHORURI(QYLURQPHQWV







%DFKHORURI'HVLJQ







0DVWHURI*OREDO0HGLD&RPPXQLFDWLRQ







0DVWHURI$UWV7KHVLVRQO\



±



0DVWHURI,QWHUQDWLRQDO5HODWLRQV







0DVWHURI(QJLQHHULQJ

±





WRWDO

one realizes that the number of students from degrees other than the Bachelor of Arts, especially of international students, has grown notably. From 2010 to 2017, the number of international breadth subject students more than doubled (Table 2). The growing number of international students is particularly pronounced at the beginner level but also noticeable at the intermediate and advanced German levels. The majority of language students does not major anymore in arts but in a whole range of other fields. Many students major in the sciences as well as in professional degrees such as commerce, in which German language skills promise to offer tangible prospects. To map the complexity of student diversity I propose a multidimensional model, which I will discuss next.

294  D. MÜLLER Table 2  Courtesy of Strategy, Planning and Resources, University of Melbourne (2017)

BA—domestic BA—international Breadth—domestic Breadth—international Other—domestic Other—international

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

164 19 221 52 120 20

184 24 229 63 79 12

172 12 230 53 49 9

209 14 292 42 46 12

205 10 241 64 28 17

189 17 277 88 39 20

182 37 299 137 37 15

193 41 263 135 27 13

2  Diversifying Diversity 2.1   Approaches to a Multi-Diverse Student Cohort The above-mentioned facts give a first picture of the heterogeneous Melbourne student cohort in German Studies in terms of cultural backgrounds, academic majors, and motivations that instructors face nowadays. While much of this information is easily retrievable by statistics, there are many more facets of diversity, which lie below the surface of quantifiable data, comparable to the suggestive metaphor of the Cultural Iceberg. It shows the many layers of culture, with just the part above water being visible and easy to identify, while nine-tenths of a culture are hidden from view (Hanley 1999). Even though instructors cannot see what is hidden below the waterline of their own empirical experiences, invisible dimensions of diversity are still present and have to be taken into account when dealing with diverse student cohorts. The knowledge about different fields of study, degrees, and international backgrounds may explain some aspects of diversity but does not provide a sophisticated understanding of the deeper cultural and social components of student motivation and identity. We should understand our students as individuals, who hold various, movable, and often conflicting social roles, which define their identity in a particular point of time, as US anthropologist Ralph Linton (1936) has suggested. He defines a social role as an entirety of pattern ascribed to a person’s given status—for example one’s status as a family member, one’s belonging to a certain occupational group, and one’s status within this group, explaining this person’s values and modes of behavior as a social actor.

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

295

The dominant Australian discourse with its dichotomy of international versus domestic students is not helpful for understanding the differences within an international student cohort. Some students come from British-influenced postcolonial societies such as India, Pakistan, Malaysia, or Singapore while others—most notably the growing numbers of Chinese students—come from countries with educational systems without a colonial Anglo tradition. The cultural background of students has to be taken into account when examining their diverse roles, but without resorting to a static and simplistic explanatory model, which focuses only on cultural heritage-conditioned behaviors and patterns. Neglecting the various and changing roles of our students, and their altering social affiliations while focusing solely on cultural dimensions, would limit our understanding of student diversity. Moreover, focusing exclusively on the cultural background does not adequately consider students’ current living environment and learning situation, which indeed may be shaped by their cultural socialization but not in a simplistic and deterministic way. In order to comprehend the complexity of students’ identities, I find it more appropriate to broaden the term and to speak of diversities or diversity dimensions. The four dimensions of student diversity developed by Thomas and May suggest a broader and more dynamic concept of diversity, in which cultural provenience stands beside other diversity dimensions—such as educational, dispositional, and circumstantial ones (Table 3). Table 3  Dimensions of student diversity Diversity dimensions

Examples

Educational

Level/type of entry qualifications; skills; ability; knowledge; educational experience; life and work experience; learning approaches Identity; self-esteem; confidence; motivation; aspirations; expectations; preferences; attitudes; assumptions; beliefs; emotional intelligence; maturity; learning styles; perspectives; interests; self-awareness; gender; sexuality Age; disability; paid/voluntary employment; caring responsibilities; geographical location; access to IT and transport services; flexibility; time available; entitlements; financial background and means; marital status Language; values; cultural capital; religion and belief; country of origin/residence; ethnicity/race; social background

Dispositional

Circumstantial

Cultural

Source Thomas and May (2010, p. 5)

296  D. MÜLLER

Fig. 1  Diversity dimensions adapted from Thomas and May. I would like to acknowledge Isabel Krug, Christiaan De Beukelaer and Di Wang of my Graduate Certificate in University Teaching working group at the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education for developing this adaption

The dimensions show multiple examples for each entity, which demonstrates that these diversity dimensions are diverse themselves. While the table provides a juxtaposition of different dimensions a person’s identity is formed at the intersection of diverse educational, circumstantial, dispositional, and cultural dimensions, visualized in the adapted scheme above. The scheme follows the idea of intersectionality by Crenshaw and Davis that conceptualizes identity as the result of multiple overlapping layers. Likewise, the adapted scheme suggests an understanding of identities in terms of intersecting and not mutually exclusive diversity dimensions (Fig. 1). The concept of intersectional identity, drawn from feminist and postcolonial theory (Crenshaw 1989; Davis 2008), acknowledges that diversity can present itself in many facets, ranging from visible features (e.g., age, language) to invisible characteristics (learning attitudes, knowledge, etc.) and that these facets can intersect in unique ways in each person. The theory on intersectionality opens up the engagement with diversity beyond simplistic and closed binaries. This can help to explain the layered and overlapping exclusions and forms of discrimination that cannot be understood separately, but only in terms of their intersections.

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

297

For example, a woman of color faces compounded and intersecting challenges of gender and race by being both a woman and of color (Crenshaw 1989). The polysemic nature of intersectionality makes it a versatile concept applicable beyond feminist and postcolonial theory. Applied to our students, it allows arguing that students are not just either domestic or international, in the same way, as gender is not simply a contrast between women and men. Acknowledging the intersecting identities and diversities in their various dimensions is an important precondition for teaching a heterogeneous student cohort. In the following, I will discuss approaches in teaching that acknowledge and keep the diversities of students in the foreground. 2.2   Establishing a Student-Centered View and Understanding Student Motivation as Diversity Work Using the term student-centered to refer to teaching methods might sound trivial for instructors because it seems to be a self-evident quality of good teaching. Nevertheless, the term reveals its complexity in the concrete implementation within a multi-diverse learning environment. Student-centered approaches often clash with realities in higher education. “Yet most prevailing systems of learning in higher education adopt mass production standards; they handle each individual student in the same way” (Ramsden 2003, p. 101) instead of looking at the ways in which their identities as learners have been formed. I use the terms student-centered and personalized learning synonymously for teaching strategies that address the different needs and learning motivations of students due to their multiple layered identities. The first step in personalizing one’s own teaching and developing student-centered learning strategies is to get to know the students and to find out about their experiences, backgrounds, distinct learning needs, and their motivation for studying a foreign language. Other than that, it is crucial to develop a reflexivity about one’s own teaching—by listening and seeing teaching and learning through the eyes of one’s own students— to question and further develop own strategies (Hattie 2015; Ramsden 1994, 2003). I support another call for instructors to continue observing their approaches to shaping the teaching and learning environment. This is also a call for instructors to continue to change their approaches in their own teaching methods, contents, and learning activities in order to attend to the ever-changing and ever expansive needs of our learners.

298  D. MÜLLER

Yet, getting to know the students in all their diversities that is, their backgrounds, experiences, and skills all at once seems impossible. Since we cannot focus on all diversity dimensions at the same time, one approach could be to focus on their motivation for learning a foreign language as it reveals many facets of their individual situation. Past research has not only shown that the reasons for students to learn a foreign language are very diverse, but also that language learning itself involves diverse learning behaviors and is by no means a uniform process (Dörnyei 1990). An adequate explanation for the motivation to learn a second or third foreign language “is bound to be eclectic, bringing together factors from different psychological fields” (Dörnyei 1994, p. 274). According to the diversity dimensions of Thomas and May, motivation namely belongs to the dispositional dimension, which includes students’ perception of identity, confidence, self-awareness, and interests, among others. This diversity dimension cannot be considered without the educational, circumstantial, and cultural dimensions that together impact students’ lives. Thus, motivation can be based, for example, on intellectual curiosity, previous life and work experiences, self-confidence, or on “various motives related to learning situation-specific variables such as classroom events and tasks, classroom climate and group cohesion, course content and teaching materials, teacher feedback, and grades and rewards […]” (Dörnyei 1994, p. 275). According to surveys conducted by Dörnyei, Clément, and Kruidenier, reasons for students to learn a foreign language include their “interest in foreign languages, cultures, and people,” which are combined with a “desire to broaden one’s view” as well as a “desire for new stimuli and challenges” and “to integrate into a new community” (Dörnyei 1994, p. 275). The sensitivity of language instructors in their role as guides is essential, as they introduce students not only to a new language but also to a new culture, which could have a great impact on students’ lives. Sociocultural orientations such as understanding the language and culture of another group for the purpose of interaction can also be related to expectations of pragmatic gains such as getting a better job and a higher salary (Dörnyei 1994; Gardner et al. 1992). Even though social and pragmatic orientations are distinct, they are not incompatible. There are hybrid forms of motivation that encompass intrinsic elements as well as extrinsic elements in the same way as diversity is composed by external and internal factors as listed in the diversity dimensions of

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

299

Thomas and May. Like diversity dimensions, motivations themselves are overlapping and frequently changing, or as noted by Gardner, conceptualized as a set of variables. Gardner’s motivation construct has often been perceived as the interplay of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations that attempts to integrate diverse components instead of dividing motivation into two separate and often opposing categories. The characterization of motivation as to intrinsic versus extrinsic orientations is restricted and too static (Dörnyei 1994; Soureshjani and Naseri 2011). Multiple diversity aspects influence or condition motivations for learning a foreign language. In the next section, I will discuss teaching strategies for student cohorts that are diverse in terms of their national, cultural, and educational backgrounds and their motivations.

3  Teaching Strategies for an International Student Body 3.1   Nonverbals in a Diverse German Language Classroom Language teachers need to consider that “for many learners there is a genuine fear of performing in the second language, a phenomenon known as (foreign or second) language anxiety” (Humphries 2011, p. 65). This is one of the most threatening aspects of foreign language learning and can present an enormous hurdle for learners’ motivation. For international students, these anxieties are often compounded because they have to learn a foreign language in their second or third language. A common language that addresses every student and that creates a safe environment, in which everyone has the same level of understanding and expression, is therefore not present (Horwitz et al. 1986; Humphries 2011). Classrooms with many students from non-Anglophone countries pose a challenge to German language teachers in Australia who attempt to reduce learning anxiety by using English as the first language of communication. Nonverbal communication, I would suggest, is a good strategy to build confidence for students whose first language is not English. By using nonverbals, the instructor can overcome some of the learning disadvantages, which students face who have to learn a foreign language in a non-native language. Moreover, nonverbals can be helpful for anxious students to gradually overcome their fear of speaking in the target

300  D. MÜLLER

language and to establish a common basis for classroom communication. They can either serve as a first icebreaker in the shared learning space or in the longer-term, help to foster teamwork, and a culture of joint commitment. Nonverbal communication includes facial expressions, body language, posture, gestures, eye gaze, and tone of voice (Segal et al. 2018; Wood 2016). Overall, experts assume “that at least 65% of the meaning in any social situation is conveyed nonverbally” (Allen 1999, p. 469). Given the importance of nonverbal communication in social interaction, research started taking a closer look at the function and importance of nonverbals in language acquisition. It is estimated that in the classroom, 82% of any teachers’ communications are nonverbal (Allen 1999). Although verbal communication continues to be emphasized, evidence of positive effects of nonverbal aspects of communication on students’ language learning process and their willingness to communicate is growing (Bambaeeroo and Shokrpour 2017; Surkamp 2014). As a result, new approaches in foreign language learning focus on affective nonverbal competences, fostering cross-cultural and intercultural learning that helps in diversifying and decolonizing the German language classroom. Teaching strategies with nonverbals that have proven successful in arousing students’ interest and engagement in class include pantomime. One kinetic approach to language mediation involves an interactive learning game that introduces welcome rituals from all over the world. This mime play could be used as an introduction at the beginning of classes, which helps students overcome a range of anxieties related to language learning, including pronunciation in the target language as well as the insecurities of non-native English speakers about communication in their second or third language. The goal is to encourage communication and to help students in a playful manner to act out their feelings and experiences and verbalize some simple aspects of these in the target language. Most welcome rituals from around the world are familiar to everyone, for example, the two to four kisses on the cheek in France, the traditional Chinese bowing, and the Namaste-salute in India. As many countries use similar welcome rituals, for example the handshake in most Western cultures, customary attributes can help to differentiate. The teacher and a volunteer perform different rituals to welcome students nonverbally. Students are paired in groups and discuss the origin of the presented rituals. This mime play has positive impacts in various aspects. It acknowledges the cultural diversity within the language

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

301

classroom and mediates culture-specific nonverbals as learning content. In getting to know the welcome rituals from different parts of the world—from which some of the students in class come from—students learn about different cultures and about the diverse cultural backgrounds of their fellow students. This fosters intercultural dialogue and mutual knowledge of each other. Since proficient knowledge in the target language is not required, the mime play is suitable for beginners’ classes. In advanced language levels, it can help to ease the pressure and fear of negative evaluation and reduce anxiety to speak, as there is no immediate or intimidating inquiry-response-action between teacher and students. In miming, teachers assume the role of the performer, while the students work together to interpret the welcome rituals, thereby losing the sense of isolation. The teacher is not perceived as the instructor, who evaluates their performance, and therefore as nonthreatening (Allan 1999; Carels 1981; Horwitz et al. 1986). Such associative pantomime experiences can strengthen social interaction and facilitate entry to simple discussions of a range of topics while keeping the diversity of the students in the foreground. To provide a casual entry into the actual German language class, teachers could ask how students imagine German welcome rituals. Thereby, nonverbals do not only foster intercultural communication but can play a crucial role in mediating the culture of the target language, too, thus being a valuable learning content in itself (Allan 1999; Surkamp 2014). 3.2   Associative Games Related to Interests and Emotions Instructional strategies, which empower students to shape and develop classroom activities that align with their diverse personal interests and emotions, have positive effects on their learning process. Students should be encouraged to take responsibility and play an active part in designing their own learning projects and presenting their questions and insights to their peers as a mutual exchange of ideas. There are associative games for different levels. In classes for beginners, students are asked to come up with a topic of personal interest that is related to Germany and develop a play scenario for which they write their own dialogues and perform in pairs. The instructor may suggest different scenarios but students are not restricted to them and they are encouraged to develop their individual ideas. Most chosen topics have

302  D. MÜLLER

to do with traveling to Germany, visiting popular cities like Berlin and Munich or famous German tourist attractions. This choice indicates that the majority of students are intrinsically interested in German language as a means of communication in order to get to know the culture and people of the target language (Dörnyei 1994). In choosing their own topic of interest, students are able to articulate their personal views. As students work together in pairs, interpersonal, and intergroup interactions are fostered as well. Studies indicate that collegiality and “forming friendships helps to alleviate some of the stress experienced by second language students […], because between friends, the fear of negative evaluation is reduced and the level of confidence increased” (Humphries 2011, p. 66). One of my most successful associative games that fosters communication among students follows the Think-Pair-Share-method. This game is particularly suitable for students of an advanced German level and can stimulate a class discussion in German in which students can bring in their own diverse interests and experiences. Students work in small groups and brainstorm first by themselves (think) and then together in their group (pair) about different aspects, which they relate with Germany on an associative base. From all their collected associations, every group needs to come up with eight terms on cue cards, which are representative of their Germany-image. In the end, all students come together in the classroom (share), where the instructor spreads out the cue cards and the students discuss and group the cards in different categories (for example, food and drinks, famous people, characteristics, and landscapes). The terms students come up with, and the following discussion in class, provide the instructor not only with ideas about their prior knowledge but also with insights about their motivation, their interests and emotional connections to Germany. They can also stimulate further and more in-depth discussions: Are students interested in German society or culture as such (intrinsic motivation) or are their reasons to study German more pragmatic and career-related (extrinsic)? Have they already been to Germany, or is there another source for their associations? As emphasized, the different kinds of motivations might not be mutually exclusive. Interest in German politics and the German economy can be coupled with pragmatic interests in a career in business or science. Bayern Munich, the Octoberfest, German beer, and the Berlin club scene may provide positive associations. But often students are also fascinated by the negative aspects of German history. For example, learning

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

303

about the Nazi period or the Berlin Wall can be a powerful motivation to learn German, and to understand the country’s past and present. Examining Germany’s past can open discussion about its history of colonialism and fascism, which leads to the questioning of Germanness as well as reflections about personal associations with race, ethnicity, and nation (Müller 2011). 3.3   Customizing Teaching Materials Many language textbooks and teaching materials especially for beginners still feed an image of a society with clearly defined gender roles, nationalities, and social classes. We barely find the representation of diverse cultures or a multifaceted image of society. In advanced language textbooks, the picture of society is a bit more differentiated, but the majority still projects a misleading picture of today’s Germany. In many books, we find at least one stamp-collecting outsider, an IT-passionate single, or a stereotypically portrayed migrant. In many cases, those stereotypes are meant to be funny. In fact, the reduction to particular characteristics reinforce boundaries and construct a dichotomy between us and them (Ilett 2009). It is understandable that most language learning textbooks have little appeal for students, who live and study in an ethnically and socially diverse environment. Our students’ identity is defined by changing gender issues, altering social affiliations, various roles, and interests. To do justice to these experiences, instructors should not stick to outdated teaching materials and contents regarding society and diversity. Instead, instructors should make an effort to understand students’ diverse experiences and their real-world challenges, and select and compile their own learning materials based on diverse reallife scenarios and students’ own-world phenomena in order to stimulate and sustain their interests. The same applies to the design of curricula, teaching methods, classroom activities and arrangements, assessment tasks, instructional designs, and feedback that need to reflect our awareness about students’ needs and diversity as part of empathetic teaching (Axelrod 2007; Ramsden 1994, 2003). The inclusion of authentic and current materials such as German newspaper articles, internet clips, songs, and literature make it possible for instructors to respond in a flexible manner to students’ diverse interests and further their engagement with the target language and culture. The discussion of native German language sources can stimulate their

304  D. MÜLLER

own critical reflection on different opinions and controversial voices within the German media landscape. If not bound to certain textbooks, students might benefit from course-specific readers that combine materials on historical and current topics, different media and exercises that require diverse types of arrangements, such as group and plenary work or learning circles. Combining diverse materials, media, and social arrangements is likely to meet different learning styles and interests and ensures both variety and support for students with different needs. This requires clear instructions and expectations to help anxious and international students who are less familiar with teaching conventions at Australian universities. Compiling own teaching materials, which put an emphasis on difference, also have the benefit of “informing students about the multiple cultures that make up German society […] or even celebrating diversity” (Ilett 2009, p. 54). But informing also means to be objective and factual and therefore providing materials that permit criticism of multiculturalism instead of forcing one’s opinion upon others (Henderson 1994). Students can play an active part in customizing teaching and learning materials, too. The personalized use of information and communications technologies (ICT), especially Web 2.0 and the many digital teaching and learning tools, allow students to actively create and share their own materials and exercises that respond to their interests in a more creative but also individualized way (Sangrà and González-Sanmamed 2010). Students can be provided with a broader topic for which they need to find authentic materials on aspects that are important to them and share it with other students, either in digital format (for example as a self-designed online quiz or as a contribution on a virtual online board) or in class. Thereby, teaching and learning experiences are more holistic in terms of the inclusion of diversity, as class contents are both developed for the learners as well as shaped by the learners.

4  Conclusion The curriculum reform of the Melbourne Model has made the foreign language classroom more diverse, which has important implications for teaching strategies in the foreign language classroom. The new diversity in terms of social and cultural backgrounds, study interests, and diverse motivations can lead to new forms of engagement with German language and culture. The demonstrated teaching strategies encourage

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

305

students to reflect on their own diverse backgrounds when developing an understanding of the emotional aspects of German culture. On the other hand, there are students whose learning language is not their primary language and who are at a disadvantage compared to students who learn in their native language. The proposed approaches and teaching strategies, therefore, can harness diversity in the service of individual learning as well as address problems brought about by new patterns of classroom diversity. They keep the intersections of multiple and layered identities in the foreground and address several dimensions of our students’ diversity while acknowledging the complexities of learning and teaching in multi-diverse environments, beyond a simplistic divide into national and international students. Binary categorizations of students as either domestic or international do not only deny diversity in terms of multinationalism but also work as a codification of cultural differences. Moreover, such one-dimensional and static categorizations exclude and deny the intersections in students’ identity, formed at the intersection of diverse educational, circumstantial, dispositional, and cultural dimensions, and comprised of movable social roles, statuses, personal goals, and motivations. They also make it difficult to establish a common and meaningful learning ground for students from multiple language backgrounds and experiences.

References Allen, Linda Q. 1999. “Functions of Nonverbal Communication in Teaching and Learning a Foreign Language.” The French Review 72 (3, February): 469–80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/398116. “Annual Report 2017.” The University of Melbourne (16 March 2018). https:// about.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/28104/2017-annualreport.pdf. Axelrod, Paul. 2007. “A History of Good Teaching: Student Perspectives.” The 2007 David C. Smith Lecture (1 November 2007). Council of Ontario Universities. http://cou.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/COU-AxelrodDavidCSmith-2007.pdf. Bambaeeroo, Fatemeh, and Nasrin Shokrpour. 2017. “The Impact of the Teachers’ Non-verbal Communication on Success in Teaching.” Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism 5 (2, April): 51–59. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8632/e8bd67fe8b01da71956960ebd2a4786bc74.pdf.

306  D. MÜLLER Carels, Peter E. 1981. “Pantomime in the Foreign Language Classroom.” Foreign Language Annals 14 (5, December): 407–11. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1981.tb01660.x. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989, no. 1, Article 8: 139–67. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8. Davis, Kathy. 2008. “Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful.” Feminist Theory 9 (1, April): 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700108086364. Dörnyei, Zoltán. 1990. “Analysis of Motivation Components in Foreign Language Learning.” Paper presented at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics, sponsored by International Association of Applied Linguistics (9th, Thessaloniki, Greece, 15–21 April 1990). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED323810.pdf. ———. 1994. “Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom.” The Modern Language Journal 78 (3, Autumn): 273–84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/330107. Gardner, Robert C., J. B. Day, and Peter D. Maclntyre. 1992. “Integrative Motivation, Induced Anxiety, and Language Learning in a Controlled Environment.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 197–214. http:// www.academia.edu/5307294/Integrative_motivation_induced_anxiety_and_ language_learning_in_a_controlled_environment. Hanley, Jerome H. 1999. “Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Five Stages toward Cultural Competence.” Reaching Today’s Youth 3 (2, Winter): 9–12. Hattie, John. 2015. “The Applicability of Visible Learning to Higher Education.” Teacher-Ready Research Review: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1 (1, March): 79–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021. Henderson, Ingeborg. 1994. “Multikulturalismus als Unterrichtsgegenstand.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 27 (2, Autumn): 29–33. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/3530984. Horwitz, Elaine K., Michael B. Horwitz, and Joann Cope. 1986. “Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety.” The Modern Language Journal 70 (2, Summer): 125–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/327317. Humphries, Rebecca. 2011. “Language Anxiety in International Students: How Can It Be Overcome?” Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 4 (1/2): 65–77. Ilett, Darren. 2009. “Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Secondary and Postsecondary German Textbooks.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 42 (1, Spring): 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1221.2009.00035.x.

16  INTERSECTIONALITY AND NOTIONS OF DIVERSITY … 

307

James, Richard. 2002. “Socioeconomic Background and Higher Education Participation: An Analysis of School Students’ Aspirations and Expectations.” Centre for the Study of Higher Education: The University of Melbourne (April). https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/ 1669939/eip02_5.pdf. Linton, Ralph. 1936. The Study of Man: An Introduction. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. Müller, Ulrike A. 2011. “Far Away So Close: Race, Whiteness, and German Identity.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 18 (6): 620–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2011.672863. O’Hanlon, Seamus. 2018. City Life: The New Urban Australia. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing. Ramsden, Paul. 1994. “Current Challenges to Quality in Higher Education.” Innovative Higher Education 18 (3, Spring): 177–88. ———. 2003. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Sangrà, Albert, and Mercedes González-Sanmamed. 2010. “The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Improving Teaching and Learning Processes in Primary and Secondary Schools.” ALT-J. Research in Learning Technology 18 (3, November): 207–20. https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ908105.pdf. Soureshjani, Kamal H., and Noushin Naseri. 2011. “The Interrelationship of Instrumental, Integrative, Intrinsic, and Extrinsic Motivations and the Lexical-Oriented Knowledge among Persian EFL Language Learners.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1 (6, June): 662–70. https://doi. org/10.4304/tpls.1.6.662-670. Surkamp, Carola. 2014. “Non-verbal Communication: Why We Need It in Foreign Language Teaching and How We Can Foster It with Drama Activities.” Scenario. Language. Culture. Literature VIII (2): 12–27. http:// publish.ucc.ie/journals/scenario/2014/02/Surkamp/03/en. “The University of Melbourne Strategic Plan 2015–2020.” Growing Esteem: The University of Melbourne (June 2015). https://about.unimelb.edu.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0021/11694/Growing-Esteem-2015–20.pdf. Thomas, Liz, and Helen May. 2010. “Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.” The Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ system/files/inclusivelearningandteaching_finalreport.pdf. Wood, Julia T. 2016. Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters. 8th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.

308  D. MÜLLER

Webpages The University of Melbourne. “Facts and figures” (31 December 2017). Accessed 13 February 2019. https://about.unimelb.edu.au/facts-and-figures. ———. “Breadth” (7 December 2018). Accessed 13 February 2019. https:// breadth.unimelb.edu.au/home/faqs. Segal, Jeanne, Melinda Smith, Lawrence Robinson, and Greg Boose. “Nonverbal Communication: Reading Body Language and Improving Your Nonverbal Skills.” HelpGuide.org. (October 2018). Accessed 13 February 2019. https://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationships-communication/nonverbal-communication.htm?pdf=13755. Victoria State Government. Minister for Training and Skills. “Record Number of International Students Studying in Victoria” (2 March 2016). Accessed 13 February 2019. https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/record-number-ofinternational-students-studying-in-victoria/.

CHAPTER 17

Dear Incoming Graduate Student Colleague David Gramling

Welcome to the ancient and venerable fellowship of scholars. It’s yours now, too! By now, you’ll have received a PDF copy of our department’s Graduate Handbook, along with the preliminary schedule for your Fall orientation; your contract, insurance, and funding package; some not-quite-reassuring tips on local housing and transportation; and a number of other preparatory materials. This letter attempts to share a number of things you probably wouldn’t know, even if you read those materials carefully. You are, of course, joining a new community of learners and scholar-teachers here. But you’ve probably been a researcher, in some desiring and meaningful way, long before applying to grad school— maybe since childhood. Perhaps you already have some beloved role-models in research and teaching, and you wonder whether you might ever have as much of a positive impact on anyone as they’ve had on you. If no one has ever yet referred to you as a scholar or a teacher, let me ask you to consider taking on this strange, twin identity here, if only in the privacy of this letter. See how it feels to think of yourself this way. You may by now have purchased your airplane or bus ticket to this city you know very little about. You may also know only a little about D. Gramling (*)  University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2_17

309

310  D. GRAMLING

this region, this land, the Indigenous territories your new university occupies at present, or about the people in the State’s legislature shaping university policy, budget, and institutional priorities—for all of us. For you are now us too. It happens fast. You may think it odd to be moving here to study what you’re planning to study—which, you may think, is actually more at home culturally and linguistically somewhere else, way over there. There will be many such puzzles of belonging and pertinence, the complexity of which only thickens from week to week. Complexity is a core experiential idiom of grad school. Unless you are an Indigenous person yourself, you’ll also soon be yet another settler in this place, participating in an ongoing, five-century occupation of these Indigenous lands. Acknowledging this fact from the first day onward may help direct your thinking toward commitments that seek justice over prestige and reparation over self-satisfaction. Apropos complexity: Within two weeks of your arrival here, you’re likely to be standing in front of a classroom of twenty students, teaching something commonly referred to in the institution’s language as “foreign languages and cultures,” perhaps for the first time. For better or worse, your new students will often have much more experience than you do in the interactions typical of local relations between undergraduate learners and their “instructors.” Some of them will intuitively call you “Professor X”; others will just as intuitively call you “dude.” Some will never address you directly at all; don’t assume, though, that this means lack of interest in what you have to share with them. For the first few months, your students will likely know the classroom technology, the online learning platforms, their way around campus, and even your own professors in the graduate program quite a bit better than you will. To your surprise, you may however find that your students favor your endeavor to become an excellent teacher, as much as you do yourself. Many of them will be privately cheering you on, genuinely willing to help rather than deter you in your own development as a teacher and scholar. They likely know already whether this is your first formal go at university teaching, and they will know this in part by way of student Facebook groups you don’t have access to. You will want to be an excellent teacher on your first day, and you will not be. For a while, but not too long I hope, you will tend to overprepare for teaching without quite knowing it, spending several hours of preparation time for every one hour of classroom time. You will perhaps vacillate between wanting on one day to conceal this fact from your teaching peers and, on the next, wanting to commiserate with them about it. Sometimes you will feel

17  DEAR INCOMING GRADUATE STUDENT COLLEAGUE 

311

an inordinate pride at the teaching materials you prepare, like a novice ice-sculptor at their debut event. The first semester will be a marathon experience in reconciling vulnerability with professionalism and stamina; there will be many moments of delight and discovery along the way. Note them down so you don’t forget them. Your students will be Republicans, libertarians, Socialists, queer people, transgender people, undocumented people, Indigenous people of various local or non-local nations, veterans, Caribbean and Black and Latinx and white people, mothers, self-styled entrepreneurs, graphic artists, refugees, ranchers, activists, lesbians, bloggers, ministers, engineers, Deaf people, journalists, gamers, sexual assault survivors, devout and not so devout Muslims, poets, people of diverse physical and learning abilities, homeless people, wealthy people, people who are older than you, and people who are slightly or much younger than you. Most of them will be several of these things at once. The intersectionality of their social experiences, individually and in relation to one another, will baffle you when you think about it. While you teach, there will be moments when your mind will want to triage this prism of intersectionality before you, lest you be stunned by the composite power of all the human knowledge, futurity, and history alive in your students at any given moment in your work with them. Almost all of your own new students here will be worried about the/ their future—some vaguely, some anxiously. They may express this in oblique ways, often through fleeting stances, glances, and gestures amid the practical mix of whatever it is you are teaching on a given day. Some of your students will be high in class, some will be hung-over, some will have a migraine from the lighting. Some will have an Indigenous claim to this land, and they will often be among the least adequately resourced learners on campus. Whatever their circumstances, many of your students will wish to see you as a role model, in ways you are perhaps not intuitively comfortable with. Some may see your class as a rest or a refuge from worldly clamors; some will see it as their best possible shot at finding their place in the world, or of imagining other, better worlds. Others will be bothered and aggrieved about having to be in the class in the first place, for a handful of reasons you have no way to fathom or suspect—including the rancors linguaphobia and xenophobia, which are of course not the same thing. Whatever the case, for them your class will never just be about learning a target “language and culture.” It will be ‘about’ everything they’ve ever thought, felt, lost, wanted, and feared. Accept the challenge. You’ve grown older and, somewhat suddenly, there is this whole generation of adults in front of you, or at least a micro-generation of them,

312  D. GRAMLING

who are on average younger than you are. And here they are, sitting there before you arrive, in a windowed or windowless classroom, anticipating you. Some of them will have practiced and mastered forms of neoliberal behavior you have not. Some of your students tend to look around the world as it is and feel vindicated by this moment in history as they construe it. Others are experiencing profound forms of marginalization or alienation they’re only now starting to put words to, or against which they’ve labored for decades, with or without the solidarity of the communities they grew up in. Do not rush to over-identify with them; they are already a different kind of political subject than you are, or recently were. Listen closely though. Over the past years and months, your students will have been entertaining—via YouTube and conversations with their peers—all of the possible civic identities presented to them in our era, from the Marxist to the Wahhabist to the Freireian, from the white supremacist to the Afropessimist to the feminist, from the Fascist to the Confucian to the Melnibonian. Their passing references and implicit affiliations may be hard for you to comprehend; they may also be none of your business. But listen anyway. Make a decision to look forward to seeing them, regardless of how prepared or unprepared for class you may feel. Many of your students’ names will be difficult for you to remember and pronounce well; they will know this ahead of time from previous experiences and will feel various ways about your attempts. Do not, even in jest, talk about “butchering” or “not butchering” someone’s name. Your students with names in tonal languages will sometimes help you practice saying their names correctly, if you ask respectfully for their help. Some of your students will be binomial, using different names in your class than they do in their various home communities; this is more normal and unremarkable the world over than you may know (Diao 2014). They might wish to use even a third name in your class, as they explore the affective multilingual divergences emerging within them. If you are white, your whiteness will be a methodological problem for your teaching, in ways you need to learn about (Rosa 2019; DiAngelo 2018). If you are a teacher of Color, or if you are queer or trans* or non-binary, or live with an ability difference, or are of an immigrant or Indigenous background, these facts will mean the world to some of your students, and you may not ever know who they are or why. If you read socially as a “native speaker” of the “target” additional language, some students will intuitively favor this, for better or worse. If you learned the language later on in your life, some of your students will feel vindicated and emboldened upon learning of your own experiences as an adult L2

17  DEAR INCOMING GRADUATE STUDENT COLLEAGUE 

313

learner, and about how you view your own complex “privilege of the non-native speaker” (Kramsch 1997) as you model it for them. If you speak other additional languages, do not hide them from view, on the presumption these aren’t “relevant” to the context at hand. They always are (Kramsch and Zhang 2017; The Eaton Group 2019). There will be international students on variously labyrinthine kinds of visas that curtail their movements in ways other domestic students could not stomach; there will be refugees whose survivance amid impunity and violence over time would likely outstrip your grasp of the human condition. While some of your students will be worried about what to order for lunch, others will be worried about undercover Border Patrol agents on campus too. Some students will have fought like hell to get into classrooms like yours, some are paying far more than they can afford to be there. Others are legacy students whose parents and grandparents are already on a first-name basis with some of your professors. A few of them are from families who can drop $200,000 on higher education without feeling a pinch. This is your classroom. And, more importantly, theirs. I can’t think of any good reason to be bothered or overwhelmed by a complex, contradictory human community such as this, especially when your primary job in it is to educate. There are reasons, but not very good ones. I learned all this myself, day by day, during my first semester teaching, in Fall 2002. My memories of my early teaching remain inexplicably vivid, while the experiential processes of my so-called professionalization as a scholar are often hard for me to recall—dispersed, subtle, and ambivalent as they were. Much as I admired my own professors in graduate school and what they’d accomplished before my time with them, it was always difficult to identify with their experience. The line of demarcation between us was as invisible as it was thick. I didn’t feel then at all like them: not an “academic,” nor a “scholar,” not a “Germanist,” not an “applied linguist,” not a “literary translator,” not a “critic,” or a “theorist,” not even quite a “researcher” or “writer” yet, and definitely not a “future professor”. Despite my mentors’ encouragement, all of these potential positions-in-the-world conjured and enunciated some barely thinkable image of myself in the conditional tense, a provisional “you might be,” but not a useful and useable “you are.” Until graduate school was nearly done, it was hard to articulate what my contribution or purpose was, despite knowing I was an ambitious adult with a passion for languages and aesthetics and critique, and with big ideas and some axes to grind. Negative capability, as it expressed itself in the multilingual experience, seemed to be the primary domain of talent I could offer the

314  D. GRAMLING

world—as much as calculus, business innovation, or song-writing was for others. In graduate school, I looked at my CV frequently and felt helpless. Was it the font that was off? What did all these seminars add up to, really? Why was success—or even just coherence of personhood—taking so long? Maxine Greene saw this decades ago as a general paradigm-problem for all kinds of curricula, including of course Master’s and doctoral curricula: Curriculum, from the learner’s standpoint, ordinarily represents little more than an arrangement of subjects, a structure of socially prescribed knowledge, or a complex system of meanings which may or may not fall within his grasp. Rarely does it signify possibility for him as an existing person, mainly concerned with making sense of his own life-world. Rarely does it promise occasions for ordering the materials of that world, for imposing “configurations.” (Greene 2008 [1971])

Why would graduate school be any different in this regard than other kinds of schooling? It was always clear to me that my professors in graduate school were trying—often, and in many ways—to “signify possibility to [me] as an existing person,” as Maxine Greene envisioned it, and to “order the materials of that world,” but these efforts were often no match for the weighty default disposition, the defensive crouch of ambiguity I felt, which prevailed among many of us students, and still does today. Despite the fact that the scholarly world we were preparing for was right there, undertaking its business on the same corridor where we were preparing for it, that world of academic research felt stunningly remote and occluded. Only long-term devotion and access to complex, daunting projects, with trustworthy collaborators and sometimes with no clear end in sight, seemed to yield for me a tangible image of my own growth. This is, I understand, a hardly reassuring message to convey to you as you begin this journey. Keeping a journal will help you keep track of the growth you are making, and much of that growth will be yours alone to notice and evaluate. For scholarship is hardly reassuring. And the external constraints of time, contracts, reward, grades, and even feedback will not yield enough insight for you to feel certain at any given moment about your path. Don’t be fooled by neoliberal discourses of assessment and outcomes: scholarship, or being-a-scholar, isn’t a clear formula, and it doesn’t come with checklists to tick off as you go. It is a vocation ancient in its practices and answerabilities, precapitalist and anational in its most important lineages, radical in its possible discoveries and dissents, and venerable in its

17  DEAR INCOMING GRADUATE STUDENT COLLEAGUE 

315

most courageous and precise forms of expression. It doesn’t fit well into anyone’s rubric, nor perhaps should it. It may be hard to keep the bracing experiential virtues of ambiguity and opacity in mind when you are sitting in a research seminar mid-semester, but do remember that there is nothing essentially sedentary or reclusive about scholarship, though some solitude is indeed recommended. As Simone Weil foresaw: “For every person there should be enough room, enough freedom to plan the use of one’s time, the opportunity to reach ever higher levels of attention, some solitude, some silence. At the same time the person needs warmth, lest it be driven by distress to submerge itself in the collective” (Weil 1986, p. 71). Scholarship in its best and broadest sense is undertaken on the streets, under fire, in times of grave despair and suffering, at moments of transformation and incapacity and impunity, under threat of death, when truly lost in the woods, and in the shadow of menacing power. When other forms of communication fail, scholarship answers in the darkness to ancestors, strangers, children, and beings of unimaginable forms. Unlike business schools and other kinds of finishing academies, humanities graduate programs are not a place for people to come refine what Rachel Greenwald Smith (2018) calls “compromise aesthetics.” Nor is it a citadel for “fort pedagogies,” which Dwayne Donald explains as follows: Fort pedagogy works according to an insistence that everyone must be brought inside and become like the insiders, or they will be eliminated. The fort teaches us that outsiders must be either incorporated, or excluded, in order for development to occur in the desired ways. (2012, p. 44, see also Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández 2013)

There is indeed such a thing as a post-modern, twenty-first-century ‘fort pedagogy.’ It’s the kind of curriculum that sees itself as a beleaguered, misunderstood, undervalued bunker, besieged by opportunists and charlatans who cannot grasp the value of “what we do.” This kind of practiced misunderstoodness is not a disposition you can afford to inherit in the course of your graduate work; the world has no time for disciplinary self-pity. You are not here to vindicate our field, to represent our field’s interests, or to master our field. You are here to transform it, in its complex relation to the world, through research, vigilance, insight, conceptual translation, and what the feminist philosopher Sandra Harding in 1995 called “strong objectivity.” If they’re serious about enabling the next generation of researchers, graduate admissions committees will not be looking for neutral critics who practice well-heeled rationalism, but

316  D. GRAMLING

for people who bring “radically different and even conflicting, culturally local, explanatory models” to the world and its affairs. It is thus likely that we chose you to join our program because of some aspect(s) of the difference of experience and insight that you will bring to your work in this community, whether that be a difference in language, heritage, self-identification, vocational orientation, education, knowledge tradition, culture, or region. This kind of diverse collectivity of experiences, in dialogue on shared research questions, is what creates “strong objectivity.” It must replace the narrow presumptive pedigree of expertise that has occupied hegemonic positions in academia throughout the colonial and early post-colonial period. Indeed, as Harding points out, “the kinds of explanations favored by modern science have not always been the most effective ones for all projects. […] The neutrality ideal functions more through what its normalizing procedures and concepts implicitly prioritize than through explicit directives” (p. 337). Harding’s feminist standpoint theory suggests a fundamental revision to the core–periphery model that still disciplines most disciplines, and graduate admissions committees too. In the transformation of knowledge Harding foresaw now a quarter-century ago, minoritized/peripheralized researchers need to be acknowledged as strongly objective, rather than just “included” as special cases pursuing special interests. People whose positionality about a given scholarly question has traditionally evoked suspicion of a less than neutral relation to the field, so Harding claims, are actually quite often in a better position to answer research questions with an empirically reliable and theoretically sophisticated objectivity. African scholar-teachers studying medieval German theology, Latin American scholar-teachers critiquing European discourses of cosmopolitanism, Muslim scholar-teachers critiquing ekphrastic discourses in German art history, African American scholar-teachers rethinking Germanophone theories on ethnology and race, Turkish German scholar-teachers retheorizing Austrian state multicultural initiatives, Roma scholar-teachers critically reviewing the discourse of Heimat, Eastern European scholar-teachers studying Nazi manipulations of language. These constellations of attentive work aren’t simply about diversifying the personnel of academia; they’re instead about increasing the prospect of better, truer research results that future generations will not have to regret, redress, and make reparations for. To borrow a prompt from the artists Jesús Barraza and Orlando Arenas, it is just as crucial in research and teaching as in any other domain to always have a working answer for the question: What kind of ancestor will you be?

17  DEAR INCOMING GRADUATE STUDENT COLLEAGUE 

317

In this sense, the increasing proportion of scholars in graduate programs from Africa, Latin America, and Asia, from immigrant and diasporic and transnational backgrounds, and the increasing proportion of Black, queer, trans*, Latinx, Disabled, and Indigenous scholars too, are not just the result of institutional diversity initiatives. The reason our field is being transformed, from a predominantly white enterprise toward one in which People of Color steer research, curricular, administrative, and teaching agendas is not just an ethical or political one in a narrow sense. It is, from Harding’s point of view, the best and most likely means we have to enhance and achieve an objectively rigorous account of our objects and relations of study. This fact pertains, among other things, to knowledge-making around the very nature of languages, foreignness, nativeness, nationhood, community, genocide, freedom, gender, aesthetics, learning, home, teaching, writing, justice, time, kinship, tradition, literariness, animality, humanity, beauty, dying, and health. The purpose of graduate learning communities is not to display multicultural virtue. Graduate learning communities are communities of becoming, places that house an intergenerational making, sharing, unlearning, and decolonizing of knowledge. It is the emerging and transforming epistemic work that you will do here that matters, not what you represent about your background upon arrival. And yet, you may be surprised when you first confront the fact that the community you are entering is also normative in some truly baffling, ritual ways. You’ll have rightfully assumed that such a community of teachers and scholars ought to hunger for freedom from unjustifiable norms. And yet the customs of interaction, writing, embodiment, sociability, and style you’ll see around you here are potent and vague, and that’s just the beginning. The field more broadly tends to reproduce its conventions and boundaries by reflexively attributing core or periphery status to a question, thereby deciding the extent to which it’s seen as relevant to the contemporary complex of agendas that constitutes this as opposed to an other field. It’s very unlikely that you’ll encounter a mentor or colleague who flat-out thinks your topic of specialization (thesis, seminar paper, or dissertation) is not worth studying. But they may very well opine that it’s not quite appropriate to study it here, or in this field. They may have clear rationales for why this is the case; they may simply not have thought it through in the way you need them to. Practicing how to articulate your approach and your contribution in various genres and formats is thus always an essential, never just cosmetic, exercise. You’re never ever “writing for the drawer”; you’re always writing for an implied

318  D. GRAMLING

audience who, oftentimes, does not know your material as well as you do. Help them learn; learn from elders how to mentor up respectfully and effectively. Many academic elders, among these the cultural anthropologist Dr. Karen Kelsky of “The Professor Is In,” have dedicated their work lives to helping you envision these complex capabilities for yourself. Nonetheless, some themes and figures still enjoy central, i.e., “core” status without question, and sometimes without merit; they function as the reassuring anchors the field uses—sometimes cynically, sometimes indifferently, and on occasion passionately—to signal the depth of its time-honored purposefulness to itself and to others. Indeed, there are powerful forms of white (male, heteronormative) supremacy enunciating themselves via these centripetal, conservative canonicities, if we understand white supremacy with Frances Lee Ansley as a “political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, [where] conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and [where] relations of white dominance and nonwhite subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings” (Ansley 1989, p. 1024). Literary figures like Goethe, Mann, and lately Handke become “too big to fail,” and even debating their relative virtues for contemporary life becomes controversial, as doing so destabilizes the reassuring affective valence that such canonical anchors bring to some, but not to most. The tricky but frequent litmus question “Do you think a major should graduate [Program X] without having read Death in Venice?” is a coercive set-up, making it harder to change the terms of the field’s consciousness and to move any historically peripheralized text or question toward that core. One of the reasons such orders and norms exist in the way they do in our field is the underlying indeterminacy of value particular to academia. Elsewhere in modern global Northwest societies, Neo-Classical economics and its descendant traditions spent the twentieth century conflating value and price, and then assigning a value-price to everything that was circulating in our social midst (Mazzucato 2018). Contemporary scholarship is not entirely exempted from this regime, in that it is now routinely compelled to express itself as “deliverables,” “outputs,” and “impact factors” in institutional reporting requirements. But the substance that makes up those parcels of scholarly “output” does not submit so easily to Neo-Classical economic terms of price and value—as do, for instance, protein bars or rideshares or trade books. So how is it, then, that we nonetheless come to value one approach or topic over

17  DEAR INCOMING GRADUATE STUDENT COLLEAGUE 

319

another, one research question over another, one method of analysis over another—in academia? And how are we to feel about this process? Rather than by way of economic price-points and marginal utility, as in other market spheres, these valuations play out powerfully in interactions, conversations, and various kinds of qualitative persuasion in advising conversations—a realm we could properly call the political. Moving a research question from periphery to core is thus not a mere matter of generally raising metaphorical price through demand, but rather one of learning how to claim, seize, and articulate value over time, often by hitchhiking when necessary on the discursive idioms the field recognizes. When faculty try to help you learn how to “give a presentation” or “present an argument,” this is often the kind of value-claiming capability they are trying to embolden in you. This is both good and bad news for us. Cultivating value in this way, day in day out, is exhausting, but it also means that we can individually and collectively cultivate the power to change how it is that our research questions are valued. It also means, though, that those whose chosen research questions already enjoy supremacy and presumptive value have relatively little work to do to maintain that status. Those who wish to pursue a line of inquiry suspected to be somehow tangential to the field cannot simply raise the value of that inquiry through traditional market means. Their labor in this regard will need to be ongoing, enunciative, and strategically complex. It’s seemingly endless work, which has been done by many generations before you. German Jewish Studies was able to garner a core position due in great part to the decades-long effort to enunciate and specify the moral calamity of the Shoah, as well as to the mass exile of surviving European Jewish scholars to the Américas. Feminist German studies grew out of decades-long agitation among hundreds of thousands of radical, liberal, separatist, materialist, and centrist women (and some men) within and outwith academia, demonstrating, sustaining injury and ridicule, seizing the floor, and demanding equitable policy and representation. Turkish German studies was pushed into the rhetorical center of the field in the 1990s by collaborations between the first generation of Turkish writers and filmmakers in Germany and the first generation of academics and journalists who were in a position to be in dialogue with their work. Black German studies, as many Black German scholars point out, is often still invisibilized in mainstream German Studies teaching and hiring, and the effort to undo this exclusion is an ongoing labor that can lead to burn-out, isolation,

320  D. GRAMLING

and precarity. The DDGC (Diversity and Decolonization in German Curricula) Blog offers one site where these transformative efforts are being chronicled. Transforming the field for the better—and we do wish to do it for the better—is messy, borderline anarchic, and political work in obvious and minute ways. This is one of the reasons why power, order, rationalization, and notions of corehood/peripherality play such a prominent role in our interactions and discussions. You might not know that, though we generally get along and often like each other, your professors often disagree with one another on fundamental questions. Some of these questions are so fundamental that we often cannot even bear to discuss them. When it comes to shaping policy, curriculum, advising, and our local versions of the field imaginary, we are not unlike Supreme Court justices in our dispositions toward one another and our shared obligations. Picture Justice Sonia Sotomayor trying to convince Justice Neil Gorsuch of something; picture her thinking about his entire approach to jurisprudence, to the law that she so loves, as he does. There are deep conflicts of value and philosophy, and yet the two justices work together every day, always facing the imminent prospect of coalition or dissent on any number of questions. They get coffee at the same places on their way to work, exchanging words and views with one another on meaningful and frivolous topics alike. Such isn’t an entirely ill-suited analogy for how professors in a given department countenance one another. Such disunity is a pronounced and constitutive strength of academia, and we should not hide it. Teamwork is simply not our intuitive idiom, in the way that neoliberal corporate management schemes so zealously adopted it in the private sector in the 1980s. Your exam and thesis committees are sites where these constellations of conviction and disunity are often on bold and subtle display; if you are curious, come to faculty meetings and listen very closely to what is said and not said. Indeed, it is a miracle that we are able, nonetheless, to build a curriculum and a set of procedures we can all assent to somewhat, on the principled premise that it will serve our students well. And yet, at the same time we are all expected to be sturdy generalists, able to enter into detailed conversation and advising on general-knowledge questions within the field. There are many ways to become a good generalist, and doing so will enrich your flexibility and credibility in job interviews, no matter what your research focus is. It is important to find ways to make peace with the fact that, even if you are a scholar of Turkish German poetry from the 1970s to the 1990s, you’ll often be

17  DEAR INCOMING GRADUATE STUDENT COLLEAGUE 

321

expected to have something more than superficial to say about Gustav Freytag’s six-volume novel Soll und Haben from 1855. Likewise, literary scholars need to be conversant in an advanced way about contemporary themes in applied linguistics and Second Language Studies, rather than just caricaturing them opportunistically. Modernists need to be equipped with sensible, historically accurate lines of thought to discuss with their medievalist colleagues, making sure not to speak as if everything clever and critical was discovered after Kant. Germany-Germanists need to have a working knowledge about Austria, Switzerland, and European cultural politics. Everyone needs to know as much about literature and art made by women as they do about literature and art made by men. And every one of us ought to view “pedagogy” as a complex scholarly field of knowledge, rather than as a grab-bag of solutions for tomorrow’s class. Beyond your obligations as a generalist, your chosen area of specialization (for a seminar paper, thesis, internship, summer project, or dissertation) needs to be a nourishing refuge for you. It simply cannot be something from which you feel alienated—at least not most of the time. If you have chosen a particular cluster of authors or texts or cultural artifacts to work on, you should probably love them on their own terms, or at least feel intense and detailed curiosity about them. Thinking that they are important or timely is not enough. You’ll need to talk about your specialization a lot and in various spoken and written genres, so you ought not to put yourself in a position to be talking about something you don’t quite like. Most topics, most texts offer the potential for extraordinary insight, joy, applicability, and critical intervention. It’s hard to go wrong, but it’s also hard to go right. Don’t precipitously snatch up a particular researcher identity or research topic as if it were some kind of a shield or Golden Ticket; some other fields do compel you to choose a specialization very early; ours allow you time to explore for a year or two, before focusing on something you truly find meaningful, fruitful, and important to share about. That’s what you have to use your trusted mentors for, and trust has to be earned. Be careful where you seek advice, lest indulgent cynicism dispirit your sense of scholarly purpose and responsibility. Beware of naysayers who seem to enjoy naysaying to insulate themselves from situations that require risk, vulnerability, action, courage, trust, or transformation. When it comes to my own ancient and venerable fellows in scholarship, the image this phrase conjures is not some unobtrusive peacetime professor who publishes book after book over four decades without being

322  D. GRAMLING

deterred in the least by the requirements of public life and moral leadership. I think, rather, of people like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Quentin Crisp, of Hannah Arendt and Octavia Butler and Primo Levi, of the Highlander Folk School and the Combahee River Collective, of Rachel Carson and Gayle Rubin and Pina Bausch and Rosa Luxemburg and Aras Ören and Marsha P. Johnson and Amalia Mesa-Bains. I think of Glickl of Hameln and Johann Joachim Winkelmann and Bayard Rustin and the Stoics. Of May Ayim, whose early death in 1996 had as much to do with her burdens as a scholar and teacher as it did with her overall physiological health. Some of these ancestors went to grad school, some of them completed it; some of them ran out half-way through or never entered in the first place, and nonetheless they became giants of knowledge and research. It is their ancestral energy that will guide you, as much as any Graduate Handbook can. When I think about the essence of desire that propels research, I think of insatiable extensions of the human repertoire of imagination, the kind that make the head ache and the heart break. I think of questions that can’t adequately be housed in a journalistic thought-piece or blog essay, of cosmological, epistemological, semiodiverse, and political incommensurabilities that resist conceptualization, let alone resolution or expression. I think of my living mentors, my big sisters and grandmothers in teaching, writing, and thinking, who have greeted and guided me gently, and kept me within view since my first days in graduate school. And I think of everyone (in and out of a school context) who has ever held on to an inappropriate, riddling question about the world, which they haven’t been able to shake, answer, or even sometimes yet countenance fully. One thing, though, that graduate training does not offer is a clear path to emotional, mental, or spiritual stability. If it were a TV or film drama, grad school would be more Fame than Portlandia, more Pose than The Office. So-called “life–work balance” is not one of its strong suits, and there is no obvious solution to this. Given the dismal paycheck, the long feedback time required in peer-review processes and advising, and the solitary time often essential for writing and thinking, one of the primary everyday idioms of graduate training tends to be that of doubt and uncertainty. There are ways to mitigate this at an institutional level, but they are not necessarily good ways. In fact, doubt and uncertainty are often crucial resources for a scholarly and pedagogical practice that pursues truth rather than expediency in its daily affairs (Richardson 2017), one that can distinguish mental well-being from a

17  DEAR INCOMING GRADUATE STUDENT COLLEAGUE 

323

hunger for unequivocal certainty and approval in one’s various choices. Think of all the various other, better-paid places—think The Office or Portlandia—where you could just as well be soaking up the dubious spoils of what Nietzsche calls “strength of character”: When anyone acts from few but always from the same motives, his actions acquire great energy; if these actions accord with the principles of the fettered spirits they are recognized, and they produce, moreover, in those who perform them the sensation of a good conscience. Few motives, energetic action, and a good conscience compose what is called strength of character. The man of strong character lacks a knowledge of the many possibilities and directions of action; his intellect is fettered and restricted, because in a given case it shows him, perhaps, only two possibilities; between these two he must now of necessity choose, in accordance with his whole nature, and he does this easily and quickly because he has not to choose between fifty possibilities. (Nietzsche 1910, p. 210)

Surpassing the easy comforts of “strong character,” as Nietzsche describes them, makes for a successful scholar and teacher over time, though often at some significant cost. “Or to give another picture:” continues Nietzsche the research mentor “someone who has completely lost his way in a wood, but who with unusual energy strives to reach the open in one direction or another, will sometimes discover a new path which nobody knew previously,—thus arise geniuses, who are credited with originality” (p. 215). Obviously, we don’t need to achieve that kind of genius and originality to be successful and to make a meaningful contribution, but we should probably want to do so nonetheless. The longer I spend in the profession, the more I find that hunger for growth is more important than any allegedly accomplished form of expertise and authority. To the extent that I was part of your admissions committee, I may be able to say some things about why you were admitted to this program. Certainly, we need you to be able to speak German vividly, flexibly, and convivially enough to teach others how to do so. We don’t need you to sound like, or mimic, a native speaker (Chow 2014), though being an expressive, eloquent languager helps. We need you to read this language well enough to know what English cannot or will not say, to catch subtle and historically embedded meanings and senses in German, to make your way through large amounts of written German at a go, to be able to make justifiable analytical observations about what you read, and to reveal meanings that may go unnoticed by so-called “native speakers”

324  D. GRAMLING

(Kramsch 1997). We also need for you to be able to build complex, sustained ideas in the research language or languages you will likely be working in when you leave our program, wherever you think that is. Some call this capability “writing,” but to my mind it is more than that: it is broadly the capacity for undaunted critique and unflagging curiosity, the ability to fend off boredom or the seductions of superficial, merely associative, and reductive thinking. In the end, we need this more than we need people who are “passionate about German language and culture” as such. Yes, you may at times need or want to be ambassadors or promoters of these faraway countries and societies, which your students dream about and may never have experienced themselves, but that is only a secondary obligation in your teaching and research. If we wanted you primarily to be promoters of German or Germanophone narratives, it would be best for the Austrian or German or Swiss government to foot the bill. Your lot in the broader sense is to promote among your students an ever-opening sensibility about the multilingual world and its knowledges, a sensibility whose primary idiom is humility rather than mastery. So long as this remains a serious university, graduate education must be about cultivating courageous thought-leaders, critical trusts, and ambitious communities of discovery and healing, who reveal complex, inconvenient things that often scandalize beloved orders. We admitted you to this program, in part, because we believe you will be that leader, that trust—with our help, the help of your fellows, and the resources of the academic communities you seek. I hope the impressions shared here about graduate study fall somewhere in the range between inspiring and ultimately accurate. One graduate student implored of me the following, when I offered my help with planning his graduate school career a few years ago: “Just… try not to give us the wrong information.” I’m still trying to live up to this complex request, as are most of my colleagues. You’ve decided, for one reason or another, that it’s time to move and change. You are now perhaps wondering what of your treasured books to pack, what clothes to jettison, what friends you’ll need to say goodbye to, and how you’ll manage on the salary you’ve been offered. You may be worrying about finding a living space (sight unseen!) that will give you solace when you need it, sociality when you want it, and stability, shelter, sunlight, and warmth through all seasons. You may have to cross borders to get here, displaying various hard-won documents that attest to your credibility. A Border Patrol agent may ask you what the purpose of your entry into the country is, and you may find yourself choosing to

17  DEAR INCOMING GRADUATE STUDENT COLLEAGUE 

325

respond as curtly as possible: grad school. The Border Patrol officer may offer you words of welcome, or may just shrug you on toward the double-doors, under the flag, to the Baggage Claim Area. As that day approaches, you may feel anxious about how, once here, you’ll go about finding a good dentist, an obstetrician you trust, a physical therapist, a mosque, a dance teacher, an immigration lawyer, an NA sponsor, or maybe just a good hiking path or falafel place. Perhaps you are bringing a sibling with you, a spouse, a companion animal, children, or an elder, and they have these concerns too. It’s just as likely, though, that you are coming on your own and, if so, you may or may not worry about being lonely or stuck in a strange place. You’ll have been thinking off and on about the habits you may wish to break before, or by virtue of, going to grad school. The world after grad school, its “futurity,” may be the last thing on your mind, though its temporariness is an important resource. I’d recommend you set a countdown to graduation day on your phone, lest you feel suddenly stuck in one or another season. In the rare case, there might already be a great job promised you upon your completion, but it’s more likely that you’ll need to design this future as you go. Grad school is a tricky life: it’s temporary, but it often feels dauntingly permanent. It’s easier to feel stuck than to feel the “sparkles,” as one of my recent doctoral graduates described their own moments of research insight. Grad school is financially stressful, psychically immoderate, and full of ambiguities, good and bad. If, for some reason, you continue in academia after grad school, these features won’t change much, though the paychecks and benefits may improve. Privately, you may have had questions about how much you want your own identity and self-understanding to change in the course of the coming years. You may wonder whether there are things you will speak or care more about, and less about, in your new life in this place, and whether the language you will use to speak about them will change. You’ll have heard some stories, vague or vivid, about people dropping out, staying too long, struggling to maintain a sense of purpose, having dispiriting experiences with peers, advisers, or bureaucracies, or falling out of love with their thesis topic. But you feel compelled nonetheless to try it out, wagering that your hunger for knowledge, critique, literature, languages, culture, and dialogue about ideas means you’re in the right place. You are. Again, welcome to the ancient and venerable fellowship of scholars!

326  D. GRAMLING

References Ansley, Frances Lee. 1989. “Stirring the Ashes: Race, Class and the Future of Civil Rights Scholarship.” Cornell Law Review 74: 993ff. Chow, Rey. 2014. Not Like a Native Speaker: On Languaging as a Postcolonial Experience. New York: Columbia University Press. DiAngelo, Robin. 2018. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Boston: Beacon Press. Diao, Wenhao. 2014. “Between Ethnic and English Names: Name Choice for Transnational Chinese Students in a US Academic Community.” Journal of International Students 4 (3): 205–21. Donald, Dwayne Trevor. 2012. “Forts, Curriculum, and Indigenous Métissage: Imagining Decolonization of Aboriginal-Canadian Relations in Educational Contexts.” First Nations Perspectives 2 (1) (2009): 1–24. The Eaton Group. 2019. “A Multilingual Turn in German Studies: Premises, Provisos, and Prospects.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 52 (1): 14–31. Greene, Maxine. 2008 [1971]. “Curriculum and Consciousness.” In The Curriculum Studies Reader, edited by David J. Flinders and Stephen J. Thornton, 135–48. London: Routledge. Greenwald Smith, Rachel. 2018. “Six Propositions on Compromise Aesthetics.” The Account, Fall 2014. Reprinted in Postmodern/Postwar—and After, edited by Jason Gladstone, Andrew Hoberek, and Daniel Worden. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2016. Harding, Sandra. 1995. “‘Strong Objectivity’: A Response to the New Objectivity Question.” Synthese 104 (3): 331–49. Kramsch, Claire. 1997. “The Privilege of the Non-native Speaker.” PMLA 112 (3): 359–69. Kramsch, Claire, and Lihua Zhang. 2017. The Multilingual Instructor: What Foreign Language Teachers Say About Their Experience and Why It Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mazzucato, Mariana. 2018. The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy. New York City: PublicAffairs. Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1910. Human, All-Too-Human, trans. Helen Zimmern. Edinburgh: Foulis. Richardson, Diane. 2017. “Beyond a Tolerance for Ambiguity: Symbolic Competence as Creative Uncertainty and Doubt.” L2 Journal 9 (2): n.p. Rosa, Jonathan. 2019. Looking Like a Language, Sounding Like a Race: Raciolinguistic Ideology and the Learning of Latinidad. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tuck, Eve, and Rubén A. Gaztambide-Fernández. 2013. “Curriculum, Replacement, and Settler Futurity.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 29 (1): 72–89. Weil, Simone. 1986. Simone Weil: An Anthology, trans. Sian Miles. London: Penguin.

Appendix A: Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence

Department of Modern Languages, Literatures, and Cultures; Wofford College C1/C2 = Primarya/Target Cultures; L1/L2 = Primary/Target Language Steps within cells are roughly in ascending order of difficulty.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2

327

1. I can identify C1 products or practices 1. I can identify elements or assumptions that are absent or different in C2. I of my own culture of which I was unacan identify several elements of my ware previously identity (ex. religious, gender, and 2. I can reevaluate what I think/know regional factors) about C1 in light of new evidence, 2. I can identify examples of diverse perspectives or experiences, including perspectives within my own culture those encountered within C2 3. I can articulate at least one value 3. I can use awareness of C1 orientaimportant to my identity, and I can tions to anticipate potential areas of attempt to relate it to a C1 cultural discomfort in new contexts. I can perspective. I can attempt to articulate recognize and put into relation with my which C1 cultural perspective underown identity the cultural heterogeneity lies a given C1 product or practice within C1

Cultural self-awareness

1. C  ultural Value Orientations: I can relate several observable differences in customs and underlying attitudes to relevant cultural values continua (ex. Individualism, Hierarchy, Mono/polychronicity) 2. Outgroup Heterogeneity: I can identify multiple key examples of heterogeneity in C2 and compare them to C1 heterogeneity 3. Positionality/Intersectionality: I understand how history and power dynamics in C1 contribute to my own perspective. Using knowledge of C2 history and power dynamics, I can attempt to hypothesize intelligently how positionality affects point of view of a C2 individual

1. Cultural Value Orientations: I can identify a few observable differences in customs between C1 and C2 (ex. family structures, relationship with time), though mostly on the level of national cultures 2. Outgroup Heterogeneity: Through self-awareness of the diversity within C1, I can infer that there must be diversity within C2, though I may have trouble identifying concrete examples 3. Positionality: I can articulate how socially relevant factors of my identity (race, class, gender, etc.) affect my perspective

Conceptual frameworksb

Development (pre-departure) (Early major courses)

(Early stages of curriculum)

Component of IC (Wofford MLLC definition)

(continued)

1. Cultural Value Orientations: Using knowledge of several dimensions along which cultures vary, I can formulate questions to unearth deeper elements of culture while building relationships 2. Outgroup Heterogeneity: I have sufficient knowledge of C2 heterogeneity to judge when I’ve sampled broadly enough to draw reliable conclusions 3. Intersectionality: I can make educated inferences about how factors of identity intersect to create power distributions in the two cultures 4. Transferability: I apply all of the above conceptual frameworks to unfamiliar cultures beyond C2 in order to begin to orient myself in them 1. I can use my awareness of the assumptions implicit in my own interpretations to expand/revise my understanding of C1 values 2. I can articulate cultural perspectives/ values of C1 and C2 and identify which I choose to adopt in my own life and why 3. I can enter new contexts with self-awareness that substantially improves my ability to anticipate and navigate cultural misunderstanding or discomfort

Integration into lifelong learning (Late major courses, frequently post-abroad)

328  Appendix A: Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence

(Early stages of curriculum)

1. I can use L2 and speak about familiar topics germane to C2. I understand simple examples of how differences in available linguistic concepts can shape thought 2. I can hypothesize about which products and practices may be valued by a C2 individual 3. I can use texts to find patterns that may express C2 perspectives or values

1. I can identify verbal and behavioral models performed repeatedly by my instructor that differ from C1 2. I can mimic verbal and behavioral models performed repeatedly by my instructor 3. I can explore authentic C2 texts (written or AV) and, with sufficient time, glean appropriate verbal and behavioral patterns

Component of IC (Wofford MLLC definition)

Perspective taking

Noticing and adapting

Integration into lifelong learning (Late major courses, frequently post-abroad)

(continued)

1. Based on prior and new experiences, I 1. I can, when prompted, suspend my can hypothesize about C2 perspectives own judgment of a product, practice and check hypotheses by interacting or perspective, and investigate how C2 with C2 individuals or texts individuals may think of it 2. I can make deep and sustained 2. I can independently suspend my own attempts to adopt C2 perspectives, judgment of a product, practice or while maintaining awareness of the perspective, and investigate how C2 limitations of my own ability to do so individuals may think of it 3. I can anticipate others’ perspectives 3. I can use culture-specific knowledge in new contexts accurately enough to and conceptual frameworks to anticipate avoid cultural miscommunication or C2 perspectives on various topics or offense, in order to facilitate effective behaviors interaction and communication 1. I can identify verbal or behavioral norms 1. I can reflect on accumulated prior experiences, as well as new experiences gleaned from a variety of individuals or in person and via texts, to continue sources, including class peers, and adapt making new inferences about appromy own behaviors or L2 production priate behaviors/speech appropriately 2. I can use observation and critical 2. I can identify gaps in my own underthinking to identify appropriate standing, seek out needed information, behavioral/speech patterns in any and apply appropriately new context and can implement 3. I can learn from out-of-class experience them for effective interactions and in C2/L2, although with inconsistent communication results

Development (pre-departure) (Early major courses)

Appendix A: Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence

  329

(Early stages of curriculum)

1. I can engage actively in group work with a variety of classmates. I can give my interlocutor my full attention. I can avoid taking offense when my instructor corrects my L2. I can tactfully ask questions (L1 and L2) 2. I can avoid taking offense when a peer corrects my L2. I can tactfully offer corrections to groupmates. I can identify patterns of tactful interaction in C2/L2

1. I can articulate at least something that interests me about C2/L2 and for which I have intrinsic motivation to learn 2. I am usually open to new experiences and information when those are presented to me, though I still prefer the familiar

Component of IC (Wofford MLLC definition)

Relationship building

Curiosity

1. I can identify elements of C2 with which I identify personally and other elements that threaten my sense of identity or seem strange to me 2. I can identify elements of my identity that may surprise/shock/offend C2 individuals. I can discuss on a basic level strategies for balancing non-offensiveness and upholding my values. I can implement these strategies locally with comfortable partners (e.g. C2 children) 3. I can give culture-general examples of cultural values and corresponding sources of offense, reinforcing with C2 specifics. I can implement these strategies with peers or older adults when the situation is made more comfortable by distance or mediation (e.g. skype partners in another location) 1. I can easily name several things about C2/L2 that interest enough that from time to time I explore them on my own 2. I am open to new experiences and information, from C2 or other cultures, and see value in them when I happen across them

Development (pre-departure) (Early major courses)

(continued)

1. I regularly engage with multiple aspects of C2/L2 in ways not required for class out of personal interest 2. I appreciate the value of new experiences of all cultures and regularly seek out opportunities to explore them

1. I can engage respectfully and appropriately in a variety of settings with people of a variety of demographics from C2 and perhaps other cultures, establishing the basis for cooperation or friendship 2. I value relationships with people different from myself and I continue to seek out opportunities to form them

Integration into lifelong learning (Late major courses, frequently post-abroad)

330  Appendix A: Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence

(Early stages of curriculum)

1. I can usually enjoy the challenge of stretching my language comprehension and production abilities rather than seeing them as frustrating limitations 2. I can navigate a wide variety of social contexts even when discomforts arise due to cultural differences; I may still feel uncomfortable, but it hardly ever throws me off

1. I am willing to adjust my opinions, beliefs and practices in light of new information or experiences, and I value such moments as growth opportunities 2. I am willing and able to cope with changes in circumstances, and I have some go-to strategies for the accompanying emotion regulation

1. I am willing to engage with new information and experiences, and frequently I can see how they might inform or change my prior opinions, beliefs, and practices 2. I am usually willing and able to cope with changes in circumstances, though sometimes I still find myself reacting strongly

Integration into lifelong learning (Late major courses, frequently post-abroad)

1. I can manage the discomfort of incomplete L2 comprehension and the struggle to express my thoughts in L2 with little frustration, and with little hesitation to communicate beyond my comfort level inside and outside of class 2. I can often avoid reacting out of discomfort, including when it arises from cultural difference or ambiguity, while maintaining effective interactions in class and outside of class

Development (pre-departure) (Early major courses)

bThis

that some individuals are bi- or multi-cultural, we use the term primary culture to refer to that culture in which they are most at home knowledge-based component of IC focuses on certain transferable conceptual frameworks and how they apply to C2. This focus excludes much of the historical and social content typically taught in language or area studies courses. That area-specific knowledge we label Regional Competence, and we consider it to be a goal area equal in importance to, but mostly separable from, IC

aRecognizing

Tolerance for ambigu- 1. I can bear with the discomfort of ity and discomfort incomplete L2 comprehension and my own limited ability to express my thoughts in class, while seeking clarification when truly needed and sometimes being willing to communicate beyond my comfort level 2. I can, in classroom settings, sometimes manage non-verbal discomfort (e.g. personal space, outsider status) while maintaining effective interactions Flexibility 1. I am willing to engage with new information and experiences, though only sometimes do I see them as having implications for my own opinions, beliefs, and practices 2. I am sometimes willing and able to smoothly accept and adjust to changes in circumstances, though in many such cases I find it hard to regulate my emotions

Component of IC (Wofford MLLC definition)

Appendix A: Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence

  331

Appendix B

What is Intercultural Competence? A combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that can be taken into any cultural setting to enable more effective and appropriate interaction with others. Conceptual Frameworks: Understanding of the concepts of Cultural Value Orientations, Outgroup Heterogeneity, Positionality, and Intersectionality, and the ability to apply these to make sense of new cultural contexts and the variety of experiences within them. Cultural Self-Awareness: Awareness of my own cultural formations and how those shape my perceptions of and actions in the world around me. Perspective Taking: Ability to decenter my own reading of a situation and propose alternative interpretations based on my awareness of others’ cultural formations and how those shape their perceptions of and actions in the world around them. Noticing and Adapting: Ability to observe closely, recognize critical linguistic or cultural incidents when they occur, and alter behaviors when appropriate in light of my new insight. Relationship Building: Ability to engage with people respectfully and appropriately in such a way that I establish the basis for long-term cooperation or friendship.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2

333

334  Appendix B

Curiosity: Openness to new experiences or information and motivation to pursue them. Tolerance for Ambiguity and Discomfort: Willingness to continue engaging despite my own uncertainty and discomfort. Flexibility: Willingness to be impacted by my experiences (to adapt my opinions or beliefs in light of new information or experiences); Willingness and ability to adjust in the moment to changes in circumstances.

Appendix C: Meine Identität

Wer bin ich? :HUELQLFK" (LJHQVFKDIWHQ (WKQL]LWlW )DPLOLH )UHXQGH *HRJUDILHORNDOHU +LQWHUJUXQG *HQGHU .|USHU 1DWLRQDOLWlW 5HOLJLRQ:HUWH 6H[XHOOH2ULHQWLHUXQJ 6SRUW+REE\V 7UDGLWLRQHQ =LHOH7DOHQWH

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2

335

336  Appendix C: Meine Identität

Wer bist du?

Ablauf 1.  Individuell: Wer bin ich – was sind 6 wichtige Aspekte deiner Identität? Mit Partner: Was denkst du, sind 6 wichtige Aspekte der Identität deines Partners/deiner Partnerin? Beispiel: „Ist Familie wichtig für deine Identität?“ 2. Diskussion (zuerst mit PartnerIn, dann mit der Gruppe) a.  Was kann man sehen? Was sind dichtbare Dimensionen meiner Identität? b.  Was kann man nicht sehen? Was sind unsichtbare Dimensionen meiner Identität? c. Welche Dimensionen möchtest du hinzufügen? d. Sind wir eine homogene Gruppe? In welchen Aspekten? Sind wir eine heterogene Gruppe? In welchen Aspekten? e. Ist (unser Campus/ unsere Stadt/ die USA/Deutschland) homogen oder heterogen – in welchen Aspekten?

Appendix C: Meine Identität

  337

Hausaufgabe: Wie möchtest du die Verbindungen und Verhältnisse deiner Identität darstellen? Bringe ein neues Diagramm oder eine neue Visualisierung zur nächsten Klasse. Moodle forum: What do you value? Do you see connections between your values and different aspects of your identity? Are there implications for how we develop our communities (campus/city/country/ international)?

Appendix D: Word Painting

Building a Foundation of Attentive Observation Throughout your work in this course and any future Spanish courses, you will practice being a skillful newcomer. This competence will transfer with you to any future opportunity you have to enter a new culture, anywhere from Buenos Aires to Berlin to Bangalore. Effective intercultural engagement begins with noticing what’s going on around us and inside us. Through attentive observation and careful description, you can gather information effectively from your personal experiences and contextualize within what you already know and what you’re learning in class. The first intercultural method we’ll practice is Word Painting, a method designed to train and improve our capacity for observation— noticing, and describing as objectively as possible, what we experience. In this method, you’ll turn your attention both outward and inward, making careful external observations of the space you enter as well as internal observations of your own psychological responses through which your perceptions of this environment are being filtered. Length: 250 words, in Spanish Your task: 1. Visit two neighboring grocery stores, exploring both: a. Ingles (a corporate, chain grocery store) b. Los Volcanes (a local, Hispanic grocery) © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2

339

340  Appendix D: Word Painting

2. Identify some elements present in both of the stores (ex., meat counter, cashier area, bread aisle, cleaning staff, etc.). Try to find an element that interests you! 3. Observe that same element in both stores slowly and carefully. 4.  In at least 250 words,



a.  External: Compare your chosen element of the two stores. i. Remark on why you chose to describe this element in particular. ii. Describe with as much detail as possible, making multiple comparisons of either equality or inequality. Challenge yourself to use as many senses as possible in your description (sights, sounds, smells, textures, flavors, etc.). b.  Internal: Compare your psychological reaction (emotions) in each place. i. Describe with as much detail as possible how you felt in each environment. ii. Try to explain why you think you felt the way you did. c.  Language requirements: i.  Must include comparisons of qualities (what is it like?) and of quantities (how many/much of something?), and expressions of inequality and of equality. Min. 5 comparisons in total. ii. Complex sentences using because or synonyms. Min. 3. iii. Description in present tense.

Your goal here is to be observant throughout your time on site but then to zoom in on something specific to describe in as much detail as possible. This should not be a book-report summary of your visit. Nor are you required to interact with anyone on this visit. If you are itching to engage with the people you encounter on this community exploration, bravo, but for now bear with me and for the purposes of your critical reflection, practice observing. The more observant and attentive you are, the better you’ll be at engaging down the road. Tip: Whenever you notice something that you want to use for your word-painting, use the next quiet moment (such as the next time you sit down in the car) to jot down as many notes as you can about it while it is fresh in your mind.

Appendix D: Word Painting

  341

Remember the lessons of the psychology experiments we discussed in class—what we see is strongly influenced by what we are looking for and expecting to find, as well as by our psychological state. Look slowly, without hurrying; sit with what you are observing to understand as clearly as possible and, as much as possible, eliminate the effect of bias either from your preconceived notions or from whatever emotions you may be feeling in this situation. A Description of Word Painting: Attractive places typically render us aware of our inadequacies in the area of language. In the Lake District, for example, writing a postcard to a friend, I explained—in some despair and haste—that the scenery was pretty and the weather wet and windy. [John] Ruskin would have ascribed such prose more to laziness than to incapacity. We are all, he argued, able to turn out adequate word paintings; our failure to do so is the result merely of our not asking ­ourselves enough questions and not being precise enough in analyzing what we have seen and felt. Rather than rest with the idea that a lake is pretty, we must ask ourselves more vigorously, ‘What in particular is attractive about this stretch of water? What are its associations? What might be a better word for it than big?’ The finished product may not be marked by genius, but at least it will have been motivated by a search for an authentic representation of an experience. (Alain de Botton, The Art of Travel, 227; emphasis added)

Other Resources: De Botton, Alain. 2002. The Art of Travel. Penguin. McClanahan, Rebecca. 2000. Word Painting: A Guide to Writing More Descriptively. Writer’s Digest.

Appendix E: Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

Day 1:  What does Heimat actually mean? During the first two days of the unit, students will explore the meaning of German terms that carry critical cultural baggage.1  Encountering terms with complex histories will both ignite different ideas in students and start a critical process through acquiring new vocabulary, reviewing their contexts and learning about their history. Joe Barcroft’s research shows how important vocabulary instruction is for students “to transmit meaning” (Barcroft 1). Barcroft stresses that it is important “how target vocabulary is presented to learners as input” and that activity design “support[s] the incremental buildup of different aspects of vocabulary over time” (Barcroft 12). As a whole group, students receive instruction to put a pin on a world map that represents their Heimat. In a plenary session, the group will discuss if this specific task connects to their understanding of Heimat. Students then break up into smaller groups to think of vocabulary that they know related to the term Heimat. Students then create a large “mind map” at the blackboard to gather all the terms that they have found. Following

1Friederike

Fichtner has shown that teaching vocabulary in German to American students does not mean that students will understand the vast differences in concepts connected to new terms.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2

343

344  Appendix E: Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

this activity, students write down new vocabulary on a Wortfeld-sheet which they will keep and continue to add words during the teaching unit. Other Wortfelder-sheets cover the terms Leitkultur, Repräsentation, and Identität. Wortfeld-sheets help to ensure that students remember target vocabulary over time. In addition, these worksheets encourage students to learn about the cultural contexts of words while acquiring new vocabulary and reflecting on underlying biases of both their native language and the target language’s mental lexica (cf. Arndt and Ofuatey-Alazard 2015). Colonialism, racism, and ethnocentric knowledge are veiled within the German language and its history. At the same time, resistance, new language, and reclamation of words2  by minority populations challenge the primacy of Eurocentric over non-Eurocentric discourses. At the end of class, students receive three questions to help them recapitulate the lesson. They discuss in pairs and then write down on posters or cards (1) what they take away from the lesson, (2) what they did not understand, and (3) what captured their interest. This serves as a guide for the instructor to adjust parts of the teaching unit or to help guide the students in understanding what is ahead. Day 2:  Unsere Heimat, ein Pionierlied. For homework, students read the lyrics to Unsere Heimat (1951) by Herbert Keller and the poem “afro-deutsch I” by May Ayim (blues in schwarz weiss 1995, 18f.) Homework focuses on vocabulary exercises with comprehension checks; e.g. students fill the correct word into gaps of the content description of both texts. Furthermore, students look up the meaning for “Volk,” “Naturvolk,” und “Mulatte” in both Duden and Arndt/ Ofuatey-Alazard. For example, Sow defines Volk as “Ein Volk ist ein →Stamm, der so groß und fortschrittlich geworden ist, dass er sich → Dokumentarfilmer leisten kann” (Arndt/Ofuatey-Alazard 553). By comparing Duden and the more critical definitions students spend time working with underlying meanings and contexts that a standard dictionary does not provide. Furthermore, students question the validity of definitions, essentialism in defining terms, and discourse strategies by publishers and institutions. The homework asks students to find phrases that create contextual meaning in both texts. The purpose of this homework is to give students time to work through vocabulary and to prepare 2One example is author Feridun Zaimoglu, who re-appropriated the slur “Kanak” in the 1990s, reclaiming this word for his community and changing its cultural implications.

Appendix E: Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

  345

them for the lesson’s goal that will focus on problematizing the correlation with nation and racial belonging, which both poems mention either implicitly or explicitly. In class, students work in two groups to focus on one poem. They receive a hand out with Redemittel for lyrics and poetry to help with precise language. The handout gives examples of phrases and sentences in German. Then, students follow the questions from their homework and discuss their answers while creating a poster that helps them to explain their points of view to the whole class. At the end of the lesson, students then speculate about and discuss their expectations toward Sven Halfar’s film Yes I Am! via poster descriptions. Watching the film is homework for day 3. Day 3:  Sven Halfar: Yes I Am! (2007), introduction to the film. Students view the film for homework (103 min., in German, with English subtitles), then complete a worksheet (30 min) relating to the film’s characters, content, and vocabulary to check comprehension. Students create a synthesis of the film in their homework where they summarize the film in three sentences. For the class, students discuss what protagonists they liked, what parts of the film they found interesting and what scenes were their favorite. In Cinema for German Conversation (2008), Jeanne Schueller provides concise examples of theme-based activities for grammar, comprehension, starting conversations, and writing practices in preparation for or during the classes. The lesson focuses on the first five minutes of the film during which the song Unsere Heimat, which students discussed at length on day 2, and Alberto Adriano’s story are cut in parallel montage (0:00:00–0:02:49). The film’s intro with the folk song Unsere Heimat of the former East of Germany becomes an ironic stylistic device when the violent scenes of Neo-Nazis following a black man appear on the screen. In the final 25 minutes of class, students view the song “Heimatlos” by D-Flame (0:15:36–0:17.49) and brainstorm the reasons the song presents for feeling excluded. One guiding questions are, “How does D-Flame’s music correspond both with his introduction at the beginning of the documentary and the presentation of his persona throughout the film?” Students are asked to focus on how space and persona are intertwined in this sequence. At the end of the lesson students spend about ten minutes creating a chronology of geographic, physical, and mental spaces that the music video sequence depicts.

346  Appendix E: Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

Day 4:  Sven Halfar: Yes I Am! (2007), term Leitkultur vs. album titled Lightkultur. Lesson goals consist of introducing students to the concepts of Leitkultur (cf. Manz 2004 and Scholz 2017) and Lightkultur. As homework, students write a short text from the perspective of a viewer explaining the family life and heritage of one of the three protagonists to someone who has no knowledge of the film. During the lesson, students examine how space serves to shape ideas about culture, ethics, and norms. The lesson focusses on individuals who represent the Other and, therefore, are perceived as a danger to Germany’s Leitkultur. Debates around Leitkultur are complex. Students receive various definitions (for example from Friedrich Merz, Edmund Stoiber, Thomas de Maizière, Bassam Tibi, Theo Sommer, Horst Seehofer, and Angela Merkel) and work through these definitions in groups. The term Lightkultur is a reaction to Leitkultur. During class, students create a chronology of how the term Lightkultur appears in the film Yes I Am! and what events in the film have a connection to the term. Students create a Wortfeld sheet on Multikulturalismus to find words that go beyond reflecting Leitkultur. Day 5:  Sven Halfar: Yes I Am! (2007), Repräsentation and Raum. Students examine the symbolic meaning of spaces and architectural projects and how art questions meanings by reproducing, mimicking, changing and mocking them. For homework, students watch a video3  about the German Reichtstagsgebäude and work on a worksheet (30 min): Repräsentation und Raum. Students discuss the importance of the specific architecture of the Reichstag in Berlin for the meaning of democracy. Students then examine and describe pictures of the Reichstagskuppel in Berlin and the Vienna Opera House to discuss what they represent. The Reichstagskuppel can be seen as a stairway to democracy, which is taken by everyone who visits the Reichstag. The Vienna Opera symbolizes (high) culture in Vienna and Austria, a country known for classical music and world-renowned composers. Students explore possible conflicts that can arise between the intended meaning of a building or space and the received meaning. They are encouraged to think of scenes in Sven Halfar’s Yes I Am! Then, students watch a scene that shows the Brothers Keepers touring formerly East German classrooms.

3The video, “Rund um den Reichstag,” can be found on the website of Deutsche Welle: dw.com/de/rund-um-den-reichstag/av-40641486.

Appendix E: Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

  347

In this way, students practice transferring their knowledge about political intentions and learned cultural behaviors to specific situations that the films present. Students work on a Wortfeld-sheet on Repräsentation. Day 6:  Paul Poet’s Ausländer Raus!, Wahlen und struktureller Rassismus. During this lesson, students discuss the negotiation of political participation through voting and in Schlingensief’s art project inspired by the television show Big Brother. Second, they reflect on their own experiences of political participation and their connection to media and journalism. Third, students will examine both if and how the film relies on reproducing stereotypes (cf. Coleman 2016) and reflect on how stereotypes in film impact the audience. For homework, students watch Ausländer Raus! (90 mins, available with English subtitles). The homework sheet will guide students through important vocabulary and ask them to summarize the content to exercise writing a synthesis that consists of one sentence for the beginning, one sentence for the middle part and one sentence for the end. One important guiding question for the rest of the teaching unit will be if art can be political or have political power. In this lesson, students answer questions about their own opinion toward Schlingensief’s container project. The focus will be on the authenticity of the art project and revolve around the question of whether Schlingensief used stereotypes to generate controversy. Day 7:  Sven Halfar’s Yes I Am! and Paul Poet’s Ausländer Raus!, Struktureller Rassimus und Leitkultur. Students are introduced to the term “struktureller Rassismus.” Students complete an exercise from Noah Sow’s Deutschland Schwarz Weiss (2008). They read an example, learn new vocabulary, and check if sentences given in their homework match the content in Sow’s example. At the end of class, students write a Wortfeld sheet on the term Repräsentation. As homework, students write a brief reaction paper on how they might now watch the two documentaries differently with their newly gained awareness of stereotyping. Does this change their views or opinions on certain scenes in the films or contexts that have become clearer? Can stereotypes be justified for entertainment value, e.g. in Ausländer raus! or are they always inherently harmful? Can they describe an instance when they felt they were the victims of stereotyping? How did it make them feel?

348  Appendix E: Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

Day 8:  The killing of Alberto Adriano, Adrianos Letzte Warnung. In class, students watch the song “Adrianos Letzte Warnung.” The lesson goals are to talk about the representation of Adriano’s killing in the film in connection to the chronology of the events. This session will rely on the students’ homework on stereotypes while deepening their understanding of the circumstances surrounding the killing of Alberto Adriano. As part of their homework for Day 9, students complete a media project that asks them to research the historical events of Alberto Adriano’s death online. Day 9:  Sven Halfar’s Yes I Am! And Paul Poet’s Ausländer Raus!, Die Aufgabe der Kunst. Students discuss the value of art for society. By connecting two scenes from each documentary, the students evaluate two examples for art and their purpose. The lesson takes time to revise ideas about the purpose of art in three steps. Step 1: For homework (see Day 8 for the first part), students watch a scene where Schlingensief talks about his art project in Vienna and his intentions. In his project, Schlingensief used citizens who interacted with his container installation as a force field to expose racism. Students answer questions about the clip’s content, e.g. Does Christoph Schlingensief believe that art should be political? In a second step, students share their own opinion about the role of art in society. Step 2: In class, students discuss their homework with a partner, identify aspects of Schlingensief’s project that they find particularly interesting or difficult and express their opinions and feelings about the events that happen during the container installation. The partners create a poster with important aspects that define the purpose of art for society. Step 3: Students view the scene with a woman insulting Schlingensief by calling him, “Sie Künstler!” (0:50:58–0:51:37) and the performance of the song “Liebe und Verstand” by group Sister Keepers (0:45:50–0:46:21). Students compare both scenes and discuss the differences of both art forms. In the end of the lesson, the partners from the beginning of class come back together and review their bullet points. The pair revises their ideas to create a second poster together, which they will present at the end of class. Day 10:  Debriefing Session, What does “Heimat” mean? Who belongs? This lesson gives students room to reflect upon the previous classes and to produce explicit knowledge that they have acquired over the previous nine lessons. To start, students engage in a writing activity or a “mind

Appendix E: Maureen Gallagher and Christin Zenker

  349

mapping”/brainstorm activity (5 min). The majority of the class is dedicated to circulating a topic in groups via the jigsaw method (cf. website Cult of Pedagogy 2015). The goal is to give students the opportunity to talk to each other (25 min). They produce a poster at the end with bullet points about their respective tasks (10 min). The conclusion of this session will consist of presentations of ideas with the help of their posters (10 min). This session can also be turned into a review session if an exam is planned. Assessment 1:  Oral Project—Eine Szene Nacherzählen: Students present a scene from either Yes, I Am! or Ausländer raus! by taking a screenshot of a scene from one of the films. Students describe the screenshot with vocabulary that they have acquired during the lessons and with their Wortlisten. They provide context and, finally, connect the experiences of characters of their choice with their own experiences of watching the film. They utilize the vocabulary about language and cultural identity. The goal is to bring students to reflect on visual representation and personal experience of watching the film. This project can also be turned into a recorded oral project, a video project or a creative writing project to accommodate students with different needs. Assessment 2:  Writing Project—Erkenne ich Rassismus?: Students write two questions with an answer like Noah Sow in her book Deutschland Schwarz Weiß (2009). Students reflect on how representations in the film connect to the concepts that the class discussed during the seminar. Assessment 3:  Reading Project—Wir brauchen Bindestrich-Identitäten: Interview between politician Cem Özdemir and Phillip Schläger in Freitag.de This interview criticizes the generic view of what it means to be German and to belong to the German nation while drawing comparisons to the U.S. This assessment can happen during or after the teaching cycle. It takes up one class of 50 minutes. Students answer questions about their opinion in German. For content-based questions, students will give their answers in English to see if students understand the text and the interview’s complexities. A dictionary and the preparation-take-home-handout are allowed during the test.

Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

Assessment and Class Expectations As this is a first-year-seminar, the goal is to get students to write ­frequently and have a chance to revise their writing. Therefore, most of the homework consists of short writing assignments distributed throughout the semester that allow students to demonstrate competency in each historical period. Students also write four short essays students which are linked to each historical period and due at the end of each historical period so that along the way, I can gauge their understanding of that period before we move on to the next. For the first three historical periods, students write short 3–4 page essays and are given a list of objects from which they can choose. I have them choose from a list of colonial objects for the first essay on colonialism, from a list of Nazi propaganda films for the second essay on Weimar/Nazi Germany and from several of May Ayim’s poems for the third essay on the postwar era. And for the fourth period, postunification, they must write their final essay on Paul Beatty’s novel Slumberland (2006); a text in which their knowledge about all four periods converge. This last assignment allows them to demonstrate the knowledge they have gained over the course of the semester and demonstrate that they are able to construct an argument about a much longer text. Naturally, the kinds of objects that you can provide to students often depend on availability such as whether or not a text is available in English translation or whether or not © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2

351

352  Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

a film has subtitles. Admittedly, on several occasions I have either translated a short text myself, such as Wilhelm Munumé’s poem “Martyr für das Vaterland” or I have written subtitles for a film like Quax in Afrika. However, this of course requires lots of additional prep time and is better saved for the summer. In-class activities largely consist of partner and group work to contemplate discussion questions. For homework, instead of having students answer guided reading questions, I ask them to write a blog post (150 words) about the reading to be submitted by a designated time. Due to the settings I have chosen, they are only able to read other’s prompts after they have posted their own response. I provide students with a few prompts but it is not mandatory that they base their response on my prompts. I tell students they can gladly write about a particular passage that interested them or pose some questions that occurred to them. In section three of this appendix, I will provide some examples of prompts I’ve used for various lessons. After all the students have submitted their posts by 8 p.m., they have until 10 p.m. to respond to one classmate, in 50 words. I always read the blog posts prior to class, so that I can include students’ comments in my presentation, but also because their blog posts often cue me into what themes they were especially drawn to and what questions they might still have about the text. For their responses to their classmates, I give them the following guidelines, as to keep the responses critical and engaged, so that they are not tempted to just write “I agree/disagree with what you said.” When responding to a classmate, consider the following approaches: Have you thought about it this way… But if you look at it from this perspective… I think you might be overlooking… How does this compare to [another reading from class]? Although I agree with you, here’s how you could strengthen your argument…

Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

  353

Syllabus Germany and the Black Diaspora Course Description This seminar deals with how encounters between Germany and the African Diaspora have changed notions of race, nation, identity, and belonging. Despite the heterogeneous cultures existing within its borders, Germany has long thought of itself as a white, Christian nation. However, Germany has also represented at times a necessary and at other times an attractive destination for people of African descent. Furthermore, Germans’ tendency to imagine themselves as white did not foreclose their acceptance and even celebration of Black culture. From the age of colonialism to the present, Blackness has posed both an allure as well as a danger for Germans, especially those who view Black culture as challenging “old world” traditions. How does one explain Germans’ fear and simultaneous love of Blackness? How have many Black intellectuals and artists responded to this puzzling binary? How has the construction of Blackness in Germany changed as a result of historical shifts e.g. from colonialism to postcolonialism and from the nation-state to the European Union? Today, as minority populations increase, Germans are faced with the task of breaking away from earlier narrow thinking in order to accept their country’s changing demographics. Examining how Blackness has been perceived in Germany since the nineteenth century is useful for understanding why many Germans still stubbornly cling to the notion that Blackness and German culture are irreconcilable. And what do discourses on and encounters with Blackness mean for Germany’s future? Course Goals In the course of the semester, students will learn how to do close readings of a variety of media, ranging from autobiography, novels, and history to films and a musical. Through examining this specific topic, this course will give students the theoretical tools and historical context to engage with broader issues such as race, gender, and class, the influence of popular culture, citizenship, and immigration. The goal of this seminar is to introduce students to the study of the humanities by having them engage with theoretical and historical texts, learn literary and cultural analysis, and conduct their own research. Exploring the

354  Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

construction of Blackness in various historical contexts will help students think more critically about cultural constructs. Organization of the Course All foreign-language materials will be available in English translation. All foreign-language films will have English subtitles. Films can be streamed online. The instructor will give you directions on how to find them. No previous engagement with German, African American, African or West Indian history or culture is necessary. The instructor will primarily lead the discussion and encourage students to participate based on their engagement with the texts. There are four essays required for this class; one for each historical period of the class. Three of the essays will be 2–3pp long and based on a particular object I have assigned to you in groups. Each historical period will focus on a different kind of object. Colonialism: visual art Weimar/Nazi Germany a film Postwar Germany: a poem Following each of the first three essays you will get a chance to give and receive anonymous feedback from a peer. This will be calculated into the grade for your paper. These peer assessments are an opportunity for you to hone your own essay writing skills and learn what makes a good paper. The fourth and final essay (5–6pp) will be about the novel Slumberland. You will receive several prompts to choose from for this essay. Leading up to the due date of the final draft, May 4, you will have several activities that will help you work toward the final assignment. Thesis statement and outline due, April 12 First draft due, April 19 Final draft due, May 4 Additional assignments for which students are responsible are posting to the course blog by 5 p.m. each Monday and Wednesday. You must write a response to the reading (150–200 words) as well as respond to someone else’s post (50–100 words). There will be several prompts from which you can choose to respond to.

Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

  355

There will be a midterm which will allow you to display your understanding about the texts we’ve been reading in class. However, there is no final examination. Attendance You are only allowed three absences. Each subsequent absence will lower your final grade. Grading Grades will be calculated according to the following formula: Essays 1–3 30% (8% for paper, 2% for peer review) Midterm 15% Weekly Course Blog Entries 20% Final Essay 20% (including thesis, outline, first and final draft) Preparedness and Participation 15% The grading scale is as follows: A A− B+ B B− C+ C C− D+ D F

100–93% = 4.0 92–90% = 3.7 89–87% = 3.3 86–83% = 3.0 82–80%; = 2.7 79–77% = 2.3; 76–73% = 2.0 72–70% = 1.7 69–67% = 1.3 66–63% = 1.0 62–0% = 0

Permanent grades are defined as follows: A. Mastery of course content at the highest level of attainment that can reasonably be expected of students at a given stage of development. The A grade states clearly that the student has shown such outstanding promise in the aspect of the discipline under study that he/she may be strongly encouraged to continue. B. Strong performance demonstrating a high level of attainment for a student at a given stage of development. The B grade states that the student has shown solid promise in the aspect of the discipline under study. C.  A totally acceptable performance demonstrating an adequate level of attainment for a student at a given stage of development.

356  Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

The C grade states that while not yet showing any unusual promise, the student may continue to study in the discipline with a reasonable hope of intellectual development. D.  A marginal performance in the required exercises demonstrating a minimal passing level of attainment for a student at a given stage of development. The D grade states that the student has given no evidence of prospective growth in the discipline; an accumulation of D grades should be taken to mean that the student would be well-advised not to continue in the academic field. E. For whatever reasons, an unacceptable performance. The F grade indicates that the student’s performance in the required exercises has revealed almost no understanding of the course content. A grade of F should warrant questioning whether the student may suitably register for further study in the discipline before remedial work is undertaken. Important Dates First Essay due February Second Essay due February Midterm is on March Third Essay due April Fourth Essay due May 4 at 5 p.m. Guidelines for Technology Most of the texts for this class can be found on Sakai and you should bring your text to every class meeting, along with pen and paper to take notes. You are allowed to use laptops or tablets to access the texts in class. However, when you are asked to put them away, you are expected to do so. If you don’t comply or if you are caught doing something unrelated to class you will receive a 0 for participation for the day. Books The following texts can be purchased at the UNC Student Bookstore: • Paul Beatty, Slumberland • Tina Campt, Other Germans • Jackie Sibblies Drury, We are Proud to Present…Course Outline

Colonialism

Postwar Germany Watch A Breath of Freedom (2014) Second Paper Due

Thursday February 22

(continued)

Homework for today: Watch A Breath of Freedom, streaming on Amazon. Write paper

Homework for today: Read Williams. Write blog posts

Homework for today: Read Campt and submit your peer assessment Homework for today: Read Massaquoi. Write blog posts

Tina Campt, Other Germans, Ch. 3 Peer assessment due Excerpts from Hans J. Massaquoi’s Destined to Witness, pp. 24–26, 34–48, 52–63 and 90–97

Excerpts from Williams’ Clifford’s Blues, pp. 12–40, 42–49 and 62–70 In class view clips from Black Survivors of the Holocaust

Homework for today: Read Campt and Locke. Write blog posts Homework for today: Read Budds and Krenek. Write blog posts

Homework for today: Watch Hell on Earth. Write paper

Homework for today: Read Sibblies. Write blog posts

Excerpt from Tina Campt’s Other Germans, pp. 31–63 and Alaine Locke’s “Black Watch on the Rhine” Excerpt from Jazz and the Germans, pp. 1–18 and Krenek, Jonny strikes up the band In class we’ll watch a clip from Hans Westmar

Jackie Sibblies’ We Are Proud to Present a Presentation About the Herero of Namibia, Formerly Known as Southwest Africa, From the German Sudwestafrika, Between the Years 1884–1915 Weimar and Nazi Germany Hell on Earth (1931) dir. Victor Trivas First paper due

Homework for today: Read Smith and Frenssen. Write blog posts

Smith, The German Colonial Empire, pp. 51–65 and Gustav Frenssen’s Peter Moor’s Journey to Southwest Africa, pp. 1–12 and 38–81. You can find Frennsen’s text online at: archive.org/stream/petermoorsjourn00frengoog#page/n6/mode2up Uwe Timm, Morenga, pp. 1–55

Homework for today: Read Timm. Write blog posts

Homework for today: Read DuBois and Zimmerman. Write blog posts

DuBois “Europe 1892 to 1894” and Andrew Zimmerman, Alabama in Africa, pp. 100–11 and Ch. 3

Introductions

Week 7 Tuesday February 20

Thursday February 15

Thursday February 8 Week 6 Tuesday February 13

Week 5 Tuesday February 6

Thursday February 1

Thursday January 25 Week 4 Tuesday January 30

Week 2 Tuesday January 16 Thursday January 18 Week 3 Tuesday January 23

Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

  357

Colonialism

Postunification Excerpts from Auma Obama, And then Life Happens, pp. 93–117 and 172–180

Week 11 Tuesday March 27 Thursday March 29 Week 12 Tuesday April 3

Thursday April 26

Week 15 Tuesday April 24

Thursday April 19

Thursday April 5 Week 13 Tuesday April 10 Thursday April 12 Week 14 Tuesday April 17

Excerpts from Showing Our Colors, pp. 145–77 and 196–203

Thursday March 22

Homework for today: Watch Welcome to the Hartmanns. Submit peer assessment Homework for today: Watch Morris from America. Write first draft of paper

Welcome to the Hartmanns (2016), dir. Verhoeven Peer assessment due Morris from America (2016), dir. Chad Hartigan First Draft of Paper 4 due (ca. 2–3 pp.)

Homework for today: Read Köpsell. Write blog posts

Homework for today: Read Beatty. Write blog posts Homework for today: Watch Passing Strange. Write thesis statement and outline

Slumberland, pp. 186–243 Passing Strange Paper 4 Thesis and outline due

Afro-German Poetry and Spoken Word: Selections from Philipp Khabo Köpsell’s Die Akte James Knopf Final Discussion

Homework for today: Read Beatty. Write blog posts

Homework for today: Read Beatty. Write paper

Homework for today: Read Obama. Write blog posts Homework for today: Read Beatty. Write blog posts

Homework for today: Watch Toxi. Read Fehrenbach. Write blog posts Homework for today: Read Showing Our Colors. Write blog posts

Slumberland, pp. 62–123 Third paper due Slumberland, pp. 124–85

Paul Beatty’s Slumberland, pp. 1–61

Toxi (1952) dir. R.A. Stemmle and Heide Fehrenbach’s Race After Hitler, Ch. 3

Homework for today: Read Hügell-Marshall. Write blog posts

Excerpt from Ika Hügel-Marshall’s Invisible Woman, pp. 13–59

Midterm

Homework for today: Read Smith. Write blog posts Homework for today: Watch film. Submit your peer assessment

Excerpt from William Gardner Smith’s Last of the Conquerors, pp. 13–56. Watch God’s Second String (1967) dir. Paul Verhoeven Peer assessment due.

Thursday March 8 Week 10 Tuesday March 20

Week 8 Tuesday February 27 Thursday March 1 Week 9 Tuesday March 6

358  Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

  359

Examples of Blog Prompts and In-Class Discussion Questions A. In-Class Questions for Dubois: • In-class discussion questions for DuBois: • What kinds of friends does he have? • How do women in Germany treat him? • Why do you think he is treated like a “prince” in the countryside? • Are you surprised by how he was treated? • What happens when DuBois tries to explain American racism to a German? • How would you describe DuBois’ writing style? • When and how does he use German? • Why does he use German words like Harzreise or Wanderjahre? • For what audience did he write this book? • How might he intend to present himself and why? • Might DuBois be downplaying or perhaps even silencing incidents of racism he experienced in Germany for a specific reason? B. In-class discussion questions for Peter Moor: • What do we know about Peter’s identity? • What can we gather from about Peter’s personality based on his early occupation dreams (which are to be a sailor and travel the world)? • What is Peter’s relationship like with his mother and father? • How is a binary between “us and them” constructed? • With whom are the readers meant to identify? • For whom was the novel written and to what end? C. In-class discussion questions about Peter Moor’s book cover: • How is the African man depicted? • Is he friendly or aggressive? • If he appears aggressive, what about the props or his stance conveys that? • Why isn’t he fully clothed? • Why doesn’t he have any distinct facial features? • What work is the sparse vegetation in the background doing?

360  Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

D. for Morenga: Concept of the Enemy • Take a look at pages 28–29 and 37–38. • How are Morenga and his men described? • Is there one unified German opinion of them or several different opinions? • How does the description of the enemy here compare to that in Frenssen’s novel? • What does Gottschalk think about Blacks? (see p. 40) E. In-Class Questions for We are Proud to Present… • How does the play provide us with multiple perspectives about the historical events? • See pp. 57–59. • Aside from slavery, did the history presented resonate with any other events? • What do you think was the message or purpose of the play? • Why present this information as a play, rather than just an article? F. In-class questions about “Black Shame” propaganda: • What characteristics are exaggerated? • What kinds of cultural markers are associated with Blacks? • How are Blacks dehumanized? • And what role does sexuality play in these images? G. In-class questions about Other Germans: • Why did Germans eventually ban the marriage between German men and African women in the colonies? • Why were interracial children denied German citizenship? • If there was less concern about male soldiers fathering biracial children in the colonies, why was there so much concern about German women doing the same? • How did the births of biracial children in the Rhineland undermine earlier laws on citizenship passed in the colonies? H. In-class questions about Jonny Strikes up the Band? • How long did it take you to realize Jonny was Black? • How is Jonny first introduced? • What stereotypes about Black masculinity do we encounter? • What do you think is the possible argument that the opera is making about jazz music?

Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

  361

I. Blog prompts about Destined to Witness: • What stood out to you most about Hans J. Massaquoi’s experience coming of age under the Third Reich? • What do we know about the relationship with his mother? • How is he different from the children of French colonial soldiers? • How is his Aunt Fatima described? • Why does her presence bother Hans? • How is Massaquoi’s experience similar to that of Hans Hauck’s? • How does it differ? • How does masculinity surface in both of their lives and how is it connected to the draw of Nazism? J. Blog Prompts for Invisible Woman: • Which part of the text most stood out to you and why? • Does Ika’s (mis)treatment surprise you? • Do perspectives on Blackness seem different from those in Nazi Germany? • How does Ika view her Blackness prior to her life at the children’s home? • How does she view it after living there? • Can you speculate as to what her mother’s thoughts are about her daughter’s Blackness? • Why would Ika’s mother consistently tell her that she would be able to come home “soon?” K. In-class discussion questions about Invisible Woman: • Why didn’t Erika (Ika) know her father growing up? • How do you explain her conflicting feelings toward her father? • What types of fraternization between Germans and Americans weren’t allowed after 1945? L. Blog Prompts for Köpsell’s Poetry: • Choose a poem to analyze. • Why did you choose this poem? • In your thoughts, what is the author’s intention? • How might its structure be important? • Is there a theme in the poem that is common or present in other poems from this selection? • In what ways does the poem you chose relate to the course?

362  Appendix F: Priscilla Layne

M.  Possible Paper Topics for Slumberland (Students only have to choose one topic.) 1.  What is the importance of music in the text? How does the text portray music as useful for breaking down barriers between different cultures and peoples? Does music always succeed in doing this? If not, based on your reading of the novel, what might hinder it from accomplishing this? 2. How might one draw on the history of Germany’s engagement with the Black Diaspora, from the colonial period until the present, in order to better understand Ferguson’s experience of Germany? 3.  How and why is Ferguson’s experience of Germany easier than that of the Afro-Germans whose narratives we have read? 4. How important is Ferguson’s masculinity for his experience of Germany? Why is it significant that he is a Black American male? Does his masculinity make things easier or more difficult for him? Why/why not? 5.  How does the event of reunification change the way that Germans talk about and deal with race? How is this depicted in the novel? What arguments is Beatty making about race and German history? What comparisons does Beatty make between the treatment of race in America and in Germany? Why does he make these comparisons? 6.  To what extent is Afro-German culture addressed in the book? How are Ferguson’s attitudes about Afro-Germans shaped by the fact that he only meets Afro-German women? Is Beatty’s portrayal of Afro-German culture complex or too simple? Why or why not?

Index

A ability, 17, 20, 43, 51, 66, 69–72, 133, 147, 159, 187, 193, 195, 204, 220, 243, 247, 261, 312, 324, 331 ableism, 218, 234–236, 238, 239, 241–244, 247 accessibility, 178, 179, 193, 234, 239, 240, 245–247 Afro-German, 42, 101, 106, 109, 130, 133, 189, 190, 192, 193, 362 alternative vocabulary, 278, 283 anti-colonialism, 28 anti-racism, 114 Asian students, 290 Australian students, 290 Austria, 4, 8, 43, 102, 121, 130–132, 230, 321, 346 B Black German, 10, 15, 42, 84, 85, 88, 93–98, 190, 199, 319

Black GIs, 94 Blackness, 88–91, 94, 106, 170, 189, 353, 354 Byram, Michael, 144–148 C canon(s), 9, 15, 36, 44, 48, 84, 86, 98, 120, 121, 199, 200, 207, 215 civic engagement, 63, 64, 68, 75, 146 classroom inclusivity, 19, 215 colonialism, 1, 2, 6, 25–27, 31, 48, 50, 85, 87, 90, 92, 106, 110, 252, 254, 255, 258, 259, 303, 344, 351, 353 communicative approach, 185, 240 content-based instruction (CBI), 41, 42 criticality, 2, 12, 17, 18, 20, 67, 70, 71, 251, 258 critical pedagogy, 18, 66–70, 76, 121–123, 130, 141

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Criser and E. Malakaj (eds.), Diversity and Decolonization in German Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34342-2

363

364  Index critical race theory, 18, 66, 68, 77, 103, 111, 122, 191 critical theory, 146 Critical Whiteness Studies, 122 cultural narratives, 43, 45, 48, 49, 58 curriculum design, 5, 6, 41, 42, 50, 52, 67, 201, 234 D Deardorff, Darla, 144–147, 150 Decolonial Studies, 17, 23, 24, 28 decolonization definition of, why, 4 digital media, 216, 222 diversity work, 4, 10 E empathy, 63, 75–77, 103, 124, 132, 247 ethnocentric, 49, 251, 256, 257, 259, 262, 344 ethnography, 54, 55, 152 expertise, 56, 105, 203, 207, 316, 323 F feminist studies, 9 Freire, Paulo, 67, 68, 101, 122, 123, 141 G gender awareness, 271 gender-neutral pronouns, 130, 280, 283 German colonialism, 87, 110 Giroux, Henry, 67, 68, 74, 76, 77 grammatical gender, 270–274, 276–278, 284

H Heimat, 121, 124, 128–131, 316, 343–345, 348 heterogeneity, 139, 141–143, 147, 150, 328 Holocaust memory, 251–253, 255– 257, 259, 261, 262, 264, 265 hooks, bell, 66–68, 123, 133 humanities, 3, 10, 17, 36, 45–50, 52, 58, 124, 129, 216, 221, 224, 227, 228, 230, 315, 353 I inclusion, 3–5, 10, 19, 20, 50, 55, 73, 74, 79, 84, 133, 141, 146, 184, 192, 193, 198, 199, 209, 216– 218, 223, 225, 234, 236–240, 242–247, 283, 285, 303, 304 inclusive language instruction, 20, 271 Indigenous, 2, 6, 17, 24–33, 37–39, 73, 77, 93, 120, 182, 188, 310–312, 317 Indigenous land, 1, 24, 28, 310 interaction, 146, 153, 163, 164, 169, 185, 187, 219, 222, 224–227, 245, 258, 298, 300, 301, 317, 330 intercultural competence, 18, 133, 139, 140, 144–147, 223 internationalization, 289, 291, 292 international students, 131, 179, 193, 201, 261, 290–293, 295, 299, 304, 305, 313 intersectionality, 20, 68, 85, 143, 147, 216–218, 223, 227, 290, 296, 297, 311 J job market, 37

Index

K Kant, Immanuel, 102, 104, 106, 181, 321 L (language) ideologies, 51 M marginalization, 19, 51, 55, 76, 78, 109, 114, 115, 198, 200, 203, 205, 234, 235, 239, 241, 312 Marx, Karl, 110–112 Melbourne Model, 289, 290, 292, 304 mentoring, 11, 198, 200, 205–210 migration, 9, 17, 24, 25, 28–31, 48, 57, 75, 77 monolingualism, 19, 124, 125, 158, 162, 168, 170, 193 multidirectional memory, explanation of, 252, 254, 259 multilingual, 19, 64, 160–162, 164, 168, 170, 172, 221, 312, 313, 324 N native speaker, 51, 124, 163, 166, 168, 169, 312, 323 Nazi Germany, 87, 90, 262, 263, 351, 354 neoliberalism, 4, 14, 106, 158, 159, 163, 164, 167, 312, 314, 320 Nieto, Sonia, 67–69 normalcy, 234–236, 238, 240 normate learner, 234, 236, 239–241, 243 O objectivity, 143, 316

  365

P positionality, 5, 13, 18, 25, 54, 55, 71, 92, 139, 142, 147, 154, 193, 316, 328 R race theory, 18, 106, 111, 112 racialization, 29, 30, 109, 120, 170 racial microaggressions, 19, 200, 201, 203 raciolinguistics, 158, 162–164, 166, 167, 171 racism, 45, 48, 49, 65, 66, 68, 86, 88–90, 102–107, 109–111, 114, 115, 121, 127, 128, 130–133, 177, 178, 185–192, 195, 200– 203, 205, 208–210, 218, 255, 259, 260, 262, 344, 348 racism (systematic), 192 reflection, 19, 37, 49, 52, 71, 78, 122, 142, 144, 149–154, 163, 168, 169, 185, 234, 263, 264, 303, 304, 340 relevance, 14, 37, 47, 84, 96, 147, 198, 219 research topics, 9, 10, 210, 234, 318 reunification, 35, 96, 190, 362 Rhineland occupation, 91, 92, 108 Rhodes Must Fall, 5, 6 Romantic philosophy, 19, 216, 219, 221 Romantic salon, 19, 216, 217, 222, 230 S scaffolding, 18, 42, 44, 52, 57, 152 self-authorship, 148, 149 self-awareness, 19, 141, 142, 148– 154, 237, 298, 328 self-identity, 141, 142 settlement, 33, 36, 38

366  Index settler-colonialism, 1, 2, 26–29, 31, 36, 39, 102 settlers, 2, 24–29, 33, 36–38, 91, 310 settler-scholar, 1 slavery, 29, 39, 90, 102, 252, 254, 258–260 social gender, 270, 271, 274–276, 278 social justice, 4, 18, 25, 43, 48–51, 58, 65–70, 74, 76–79, 122, 126, 133, 244 social media, 19, 129, 216, 217, 221, 224 stereotype threat, 19, 198, 200, 203–205, 211 study abroad (SA), 19, 96, 124, 148, 157–161, 163, 164, 166–174, 292 T trans- and non-binary students, 271 transdisciplinary, 46, 48

U Universal Design (UD), 243, 244, 246 W whiteness, 4, 7, 10, 14, 16, 18, 19, 77, 84, 97, 109, 120–122, 124, 126, 130, 131, 133, 162, 170, 190, 193, 198, 200, 201, 215, 312 white supremacy, 3, 18, 68, 90, 101, 102, 122, 127, 202, 210, 318 Woltmann, Ludwig, 110, 111 word-painting, 152, 339, 340 X xenophobia, 127, 311