Social Theory and Regional Studies in the Global Age

5: Reconfiguring Area Studies for the Global Age

5 Reconfiguring Area Studies for the Global Age Wolf Schäfer Some fifteen years ago, I imagined the Global Age in the plural, guided by the “Middle Ages,” as a sequence of eras: My colleagues five hundred years from now will call the long and eventful stretch of history since the Second World War the Global Ages. Future historians will use the plural to signify that they see a sequence of eras in this new historical epoch, which was originally named the Global Age. (Schäfer 1995) This was not an outlandish thought in 1995. The following year, Martin Albrow published The Global Age—in the early 1990s, the dialectic of beginning and end was widely felt. Of course, it was a stretch to assume that historical periodization will eventually introduce the anticipated Global Ages. However, a few things had become clear. The cold war had already turned into a distinct sub-era known from start to finish: from the U.S. “containment” (Truman Doctrine) of the Soviet Union with substantial aid for Greece and Turkey in 1947 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the demise of the USSR in 1991. Dead certainties such as the two Germanys were no longer, and other ostensibly well-established entities, such as area studies, were forced to reconsider their justification. Area studies had become an asset in search of a problem, an answer that was in large part invented for the bipolar problématique of the cold war and not the unfettered globalizations and multipolar tensions that became dominant after the cold war had ended. The particular problem, for which area studies had been the 145 146 Wolf Schäfer main academic solution, had disappeared. The world had changed and area studies had to adjust. This is a study in the maladjustment of area studies. I Area studies have settled down academically. Entrenched in individual university institutes, centers, programs, and even some full-fledged departments, they have gained a seemingly secure place in the academy and become as inward-looking and boundary-conscious as regular university disciplines. It is an unintended consequence of this success that area studies are now increasingly at odds with the border- and boundary-busting dynamics of the post–cold war era of the Global Age. Hence, a newly responsive, boundary -defying area studies approach is required to tackle the challenges of global history. To be successful and relevant in our time, the rich local expertise of area studies must be combined with transdisciplinarity and cooperation among the experts of different world regions. Yet that combination is currently precluded by the fragmented organization of traditional area studies. Assuming that the challenge of global history warrants the defragmentation of area studies, we have to answer the question, How does one defragment area studies safely? This is a delicate question in times of economic crisis and budgetary cuts when whole university departments, not to mention programs, centers, or institutes, are endangered in the name of reform. So let me be clear: globally connected societies cannot afford to lose the accumulated regional knowledge, cultural Fingerspitzengefühl, and linguistic competence of area studies. Retrenching area studies would be pennywise and shortsighted; it would save a relatively small amount of money and destroy a lot of hard-won value. Universities and colleges are expected to help solve the world’s complex global/local problems, not to make them harder to tackle. Of course, real-world problems can be intractable and defy academic solutions. But throwing the stores of regional knowledge overboard, which traditional area studies contain, can only reduce our ability to understand the local problems of global history, let alone cope with them. Thus, I argue that the optimal way to defragment area studies is to evolve them into global/local studies. The evolution of area studies into global/local studies is a vital matter for area studies as well as global studies. Paraphrasing a famous dictum about philosophy and history of science,1 I would say, area studies without global studies are blind and global studies without area studies are empty. Now let me try to chart the mental maps that lead me to this conclusion. 147 Reconfiguring Area Studies for the Global Age The maps I have in mind contain four entities: global history (GH), area studies (AS), global studies (GS), and world history (WH). Unconnected, these entities form an unordered list, but connected, they...