In my own conceptualization of transnationalism, Arjun Appadurai’s emphasis on the cultural component of globalization was very persuasive. In particular, the notion that electronic media and migration play an important role in how we imagine our identity and surrounding world was very effective. Writing in the 1990s, Appadurai explains how certain migrant groups utilizing technology in new locales, such as Korean-Americans viewing the 1988 Seoul Olympics on television or Turkish guest workers in Germany watching Turkish language films, enable disruptions of traditional national identities, and create new diasporic public spheres.
This appears particularly nascent today in the 21st century, especially with the rise of internet use, online newspapers, new forms of media such as blogging and youtube, and social media usage. If we consider the example of migrants in distant places away from their homeland, these new forums have created ambivalence in that individuals remain virtually close to their home culture, yet physically removed. We are continually left to ponder the new “imagined” sense of cultural proximity.
In my work as an German educator, for example, I have been able to reflect on Appadurai’s concept. Recently, one of my students returned from spending a rewarding exchange year in Germany, in which she lived with a host family and attended a German school. When I asked what she missed the most about Germany, she mentioned her host family, but added, “It’s not too bad, as we Skype in German almost every weekend.” Immediately, I thought of the contrast between this student’s experience and my own 15 years prior. When I returned to the United States after spending my senior year of high school in Switzerland, I had to keep in touch with my host family and friends via snail mail or burgeoning emails. In essence, the sense of nostalgia experienced seemed less prevalent with the aid of 21st century technologies.
On the other hand, I thought with this example how Appadurai’s ethnoscapes, technosapes, and mediascapes readily merge. At this point in time, access with a target language culture and language is readily available to educational institutions, language instructors, and students alike. Perhaps learning a foreign language today may be even more appealing than it was in the past.
Jocelyn, your post made me feel a (real, not false) nostalgia for my exchange year in Germany, where I was able to learn and grow through interactions with German peers. I am now a German teacher in Riverdale, MD just a few miles from the University of Maryland, and consequently UMD’s relationships to local institutions is important and interesting to me. Paul Jay talks about the dialectical flows between local, national and global forces but I think it is also important to consider the cultural and information “forms” that are engendered through interactions of universities with the (many marginalized and poor) citizens who live in university surrounding areas. My high school is both diverse and low-income, and for most of my students UMD might as be a hundred miles away. If we students of transnationalism are to look to the fringes, then why don’t we start with UMD’s immediate local environment?
Randy, many thanks for your feedback. Your response made me reflect further on how the experience of the foreign language educator with the target language or culture influences the way we teach and and convey German speaking cultures in the classroom. Indeed, enthusiasm, motivation, and dedication are key. It’s intriguing to think how our local university or educational institutions can assist our classes in “visiting” the target culture right here at home. Whether it’s through a penpal exchange with an advanced German course at another school, a field trip to an embassy, or a visit to a cultural event at the Goethe institute, Paul Jay’s dialectal flows between local, national, and global forces appear readily accessible, especially in the Washington DC area.