Sharon P. Johnson
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

"Blending Curricula:
A case study at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"

ABSTRACT
" The reconfiguration of knowledge will always be subject to struggle" writes Mike Kelly in "The Stranger's Gaze: The Emergence of French Cultural Studies," and certainly Bloom's 1994 comments are emblematic of the hostility in the academy among many of our colleagues who have felt threatened witnessing the emergence of new critical and textual practices, which have changed the content and scope of what used to be nostalgically the(ir) French canon. Despite the dismissive tone of Bloom's remarks, they warrant attention insomuch as they represent the genuine anxiety, anger, or fear that change can elicit: one can become ferocious when protecting what is most cherished. Unfortunately, such reactionary views do not seek to engage in thoughtful dialog about what is essential to (or cherished by) so many of us: how should we be shaping our French Studies Curriculum in the 21st century? What life skills or what kinds of academic skills (intellectual integrity, analysis, research, cultural literacy, cogent writing skills) do we wish to foster? How do we develop a meaningful and rigorous curriculum while also being mindful of our students' interests and desires? Whose education do we need to keep in mind for which professional trajectories: our students as future world citizens, global business partners, elementary or secondary teachers, graduate students of French etc.? Do we need to market our field or ourselves differently for today's students and administrators? These interrelated concerns will be addressed in the context of the scholarship that has been published on the French canon, French Studies, and French Cultural Studies since the early 1990s.
As a starting point, in order to envision the (re)designing of a "successful" French and Francophone Studies program, reflections from several of our profession's finest teacher-scholars, such as Phyllis Franklin, Naomi Schor, Nelly Furman, and Elaine Marks, provide us thoughtful models to contemplate. Their insights also offer a working definition for the very polyvalent term of "Cultural Studies" and illustrate new directions and connections that are created we when broaden our disciplinary boundaries and allow students to explore the multiple perspectives and ever evolving identities of the French/European and Francophone worlds.
As a second point, I argue that based on the latest research by Goldberg and Welles (Profession 2001 and 2002), a Cultural Studies approach combined with a more "traditional" type of French curriculum offer a meaningful course of study that is very attractive to students. The French and Francophone Studies program at my home institution, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, a fairly typical large state university will serve as a case study. We have chosen a balance between the two aforementioned curricula. Although the structure of the major has not changed for over a decade, the content has. I wish to share our course requirements for the major, the new curricular initiatives that we have been instituting, various strategies we use to recruit new students and to "sell" the importance of our field to students, other colleges, and administrators. While remaining very dynamic, much of what we teach is still "traditional," and our program is enjoying unprecedented enrollments and continues to expand in very exciting ways.

PAPER

"The reconfiguration of knowledge will always be subject to struggle" writes Mike Kelly in "The Stranger's Gaze: The Emergence of French Cultural Studies," and certainly Bloom's comments are emblematic of the hostility in the academy among many of our colleagues who have felt threatened, witnessing the emergence of new critical and textual practices that have changed the content and scope of what used to be nostalgically the(ir) French canon. Despite the dismissive tone of Bloom's remarks, they warrant attention insomuch as they represent the genuine anxiety, anger, or fear that change can elicit: one can become ferocious when protecting what is most cherished. Unfortunately, such reactionary views do not seek to engage in thoughtful dialog about what is essential to (or cherished by) so many of us: how should we be shaping our French Studies Curriculum in the 21st century? What life skills or what kinds of academic skills (intellectual integrity, analysis, research, cultural literacy) do we wish to foster? How do we develop a meaningful and rigorous curriculum while also being mindful of our students' interests and desires? Whose education do we need to keep in mind for which professional trajectories: our students as future world citizens, global business partners, elementary or secondary teachers, graduate students of French etc.? Do we need to market ourselves or our field differently for today's students and administrators?

As a point of departure, I draw on the Cultural Studies scholarship to establish a working framework and approach for teaching French Studies in the twenty-first century. Secondly, I argue that based on the latest research by Goldberg and Welles (Profession 2001), a Cultural Studies approach combined with a more "traditional" type of French curriculum offers a meaningful course of study that is attractive to students. The French and Francophone Studies program at my home institution, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (often referred to as “Virginia Tech”), a fairly typical large state university will serve as a case study. We have chosen a balance between the two aforementioned curricula. Although the structure of the major has not changed for over two decades, the content has. I wish to share our course requirements for the major, the new curricular initiatives that we have been instituting, and various strategies we use to promote our field to students, colleagues, and administrators. Our program is enjoying unprecedented high enrollments and continues to expand in very exciting ways while remaining very "traditional."

Although Bloom did not make mention of Cultural Studies explicitly in his 1994 remarks, they were published among the numerous debates regarding the literary canon of living languages. Since the early nineties, and still today, the scholarship reveals fascinating power plays, expressed in a series of binary oppositions:

illegitimate vs. legitimate
inclusion vs. exclusion (texts and national languages)
purist (but bad?) vs. impure? (but good?)
universal vs. discrete and singular truths
historical vs. contemporary
linear (historical) vs. holistic or multiple networks
foreground vs. background

Be it a fight for legitimization and/or supremacy, the restructuring of knowledge, as Marie-Pierre Le Hir has argued, can destabilize hierarchical power structures within the academy. Drawing on Bourdieu, she defines Cultural Studies as “a species of capital […] ‘both a weapon and a stake of struggle […]’” (“French Cultural Studies” 182). Le Hir also identifies a “slippage” that occurs in the debates on Cultural Studies between two types of discourses, “one concerning the production of knowledge, the other the reproduction of disciplines” (“French Cultural Studies” 175-76). Which texts we select and the methodology we use shape our students as readers and thinkers and invariably (or unwittingly) shape our discipline. At the graduate level and beyond, canon matters have repercussions on research, exam and dissertation topics, job announcements and hiring, publishing, and the formal review of our colleagues for promotion and tenure. Although it is very difficult to separate how we teach literature in the classroom from the goals for the study of literature, I will try to not blur the two.

Since I value the new synergies between disciplines and colleges as well as cultural, literary and theoretical-oriented senior seminars, I choose to focus on arguments that show how to preserve the specificity of what we have always done as professors of language, literature and culture while also broadening our discipline’s sphere of intellectual inquiry. Nelly Furman offers us a working definition for French Studies. She stresses new directions and connections that are created we when expand our disciplinary boundaries, allowing students to explore the multiple perspectives and ever evolving identities of the French/European and Francophone worlds:

Students today live in the chaotic cultures of a cybernetic age controlled by global market forces in a world facing both exacerbated displays of nationalism and intensified claims for recognition of discrete ethnic identities. What follows is an attempt to formulate a feasible model for a French Studies undergraduate program that might answer the needs of those students.
French as the lingua franca that unites diverse societies and cultures is the symbolic and real capital of a French studies program, the living memorial and active repository of the language’s many histories. French studies cannot simply be concerned with the study of France’s national cultural past; it must account as well for the francophone cultures it spawned during its colonialist expansion. […] After all, nearly 300 million people outside of France use French as a means of communication, and this diversity needs to be acknowledged and reflected in the curriculum” (70).

Furman stresses the importance of expanding the intellectual, cultural and geographical boundaries of our field so as to represent the multiple perspectives of the French-speaking world. Like Cultural Studies, Furman’s model seeks to challenge the unspoken hegemony of national identities by offering a more inclusive program of study.

If one regards visual, musical, and written works as cultural texts, it seems to me that our courses/curriculum should select those texts which best allow us to study a century, topic, or theme, provided we exercise what Lawrence Grossberg calls “responsible eclecticism” (29). For example, when I teach my French topics course, “Constructions and Subversions of Gender,” students study gender constructions of femininity and masculinity in French literature from different historical periods in tandem with influential feminist, social, and psychoanalytic theories on gender. The study of literary texts remains the central focus of the course. Close textual analysis of these discourses’ narratives, arguments and rhetorical strategies heightens students’ understanding of how these texts produce and/or contest gender traits, roles, and statuses, in the past and present. (Syllabus of course)

If we are responsible educators and wish to train our students to think rigorously and thoughtfully about the complexities of language, culture, and meaning, the Cultural Studies model offers a very attractive approach. Grossberg provides an additional definition:

[…] cultural studies is about exploring and explaining relationships between culture (or cultural practices) and everything that is not obviously cultural—including economic practices, social relations and differences, national issues, social institutions, etc. It involves mapping the connections to see how those connections are being made and where they can be remade. And therefore, its research must always cross disciplinary boundaries. (25)

Obviously, the inclusion or exclusion of certain literary and/or non-literary texts restructures our field. There are also pitfalls of which to be wary. In Professions: Conversations on the Future of Literary and Cultural Studies, Elaine Marks was interviewed by Donald Hall and asked to talk about her perspective on how the profession had changed over the course of her career. Some of her disappointments clarify potential dangers of Cultural Studies programs as well as important skills to which we should remain committed in terms of our methodology: reading texts as texts and reading for ambiguities (277-78).

Lastly, as we envision the (re)designing of a "successful" French and Francophone Studies program, Phyllis Franklyn offers this reflection:

More important than the highest degree an institution or department grants are the effectiveness of its courses and programs and the quality of the human interactions it encourages. (1)

I am drawn to the value Franklyn places on human interactions in the context of any degree program. Politics and problematic personalities in any department can undermine the most exceptional programs in the country. In the context of such challenges, Franklyn reminds us that successful, effective (French) programs concern not only the quality of what and how we teach (curriculum, methodology) but also the way in which we relate to our colleagues and students.

Over the last thirteen years, three phenomena have compelled departments of living languages and literatures to reevaluate their curricula. The first is the emergence of Cultural Studies. The second specifically relates to French Studies programs: the MLA’s two surveys reporting that French enrollments in higher education decreased by 25% between 1990 and 1995 and 1995 and 1998. The third represents a rhetorical shift in the academy whereby universities define themselves as a business. Education is represented as a product to be sold and the students are the consumers. The extended metaphor turns courses into commodities making programs and/or departments competitors in a high stakes marketplace. Our courses (and curricula) must be attractive to students as university resources are distributed based on quantifiable data, such as a department’s enrollments and the number of its majors and minors. These forces, especially the latter two, have been a catalyst in making French programs sensitive to the interests of their students. At Virginia Tech, as a case in point, our French program has expanded its course offerings and revised some of its requirements for the major. Our motivations have been multiple. Surveys given to past and present majors in the 1990s revealed that our graduates wished they could have taken courses in Francophone Studies and French for Business. Both of these areas have been added to our curriculum since my arrival at Virginia Tech (1998) and continue to be developed. I will return to the components of our major shortly.

If we desire to train our students for as many different professional trajectories as possible while upholding the integrity of our field, I submit that our French curriculum must remain heavily grounded in the teaching of literature. Our literature/cultural studies courses develop and refine our students’ abilities to read, write, and think analytically, which are the most highly prized skills in any professional context. Students often ask us whether a given course or field of study is “practical.” The translation of this question is will it help them get a job once they graduate. The quest of knowledge at the undergraduate level is less a goal in and of itself. We are facing what can appear to be two contradictory goals of education “learning for” versus “learning tout court.” Of course the notion of a “practical field of study” or a “practical course” in students’ minds (and in those of parents, and university administrators) represents concrete, quantifiable skills that will allow graduates to advance in the world of business or to accumulate capital. In the minds of students, French for Business courses seem more “practical” than our “traditional” language, culture and literature courses. Yet, the reverse is true.

We need to subvert the usual associations of the learning/learning for and process/product paradigms, by repackaging or remarketing the study of literature to students, parents and administrators. If the aforementioned groups place the greatest value on “practical” skills that is, what will make students best prepared for the job market, we need to use this type of language and reasoning to “sell” a liberal arts education. If we can bring a new legitimacy to our discipline by co-opting a discourse of “practicality” and “value,” then it is important to use such arguments.
Universities now are committed to internationalizing their curricula and to providing their students with more international experiences. Administrators are recognizing that the global marketplace of the twenty-first century requires graduates to be culturally literate, even if these administrators do not always understand what “internationalization” means or requires. This is a unique opportunity to showcase the importance of our field to the university community. The triple focus of our discipline-- the teaching of foreign languages, literatures and cultures--prepares our students impressively for all professions—here at home and abroad, as does the emphasis we place on foreign study.

Every fall our department has a meeting for our majors and minors. I am given 15 minutes to present what kinds of careers are available for students with a degree in foreign languages. I always begin my talk with underscoring the value students place on “practical” courses to then emphasize the value of a liberal arts degree. I stress that it is in their literature courses they will learn how to read, write and think, which means that their literature courses will be the most “practical” courses they will take throughout their studies. I encourage them look differently upon the analyses they are asked to write and the comments professors write, for these remarks are teaching them how to defend their ideas with cogent argumentation. I then stress the “practical” job skills they will learn by studying a language and culture. Below is a portion of the handout I go over with students attending the Majors and Minors meeting:

I. The many practical skills developed when studying Foreign Languages & Literatures (Liberal Arts)
A. Liberal Arts generally
i. Critical thinking
ii. Writing persuasively (in an organized, clear fashion)
iii. Making connections and thinking more broadly
B. Foreign Languages (and cultures) specifically
i. Linguistic skills
ii. Communication skills (Oral, Written, Computer)
iii. Cross-cultural awareness and globalization iv. Coping with the foreign

I use many examples to back up my claims, for example over 200 jobs were left unfilled in Northern Virginia two years ago because companies could not find enough candidates who could write well. I encourage students who are currently only minors to consider majoring in their language of choice. To both students and administrators our department has shared these statistics to emphasize the importance of study abroad:

• Most students who study abroad feel it is the most important part of their education.
• Study abroad can be one of the best means to prepare students for living and working in a global context when it is integrated into an overall framework of language and culture courses at VPI&SU.
• A recent study by Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business reveals that its graduates earn $2000 a year more if they have gone abroad.

This particular development is from a position letter that three colleagues and I wrote on behalf of our department. It was sent to the Associate Provost of International Programs spring 2003 with the goal of making our department and our faculty’s expertise in international phenomena more visible. Our strategy was to frame this expertise in the context of the university’s desire to significantly expand internationalization. So impressed was the Associate Provost of International Programs by this document, he scheduled to come to one of our departmental meetings, and he forwarded the letter to our provost and president. After reading this letter, the provost also scheduled to attend one of our departmental meetings. Both administrators stated that they had been unaware of our many initiatives and had not considered that we had an expertise in the area of internationalization. (The position letter).

These arguments have proven to be more persuasive to students, faculty in other colleges, and to our university administrators. Our French Studies program also emphasizes that French is the most important international language after English. Each fall, new students receive a handout: “French: The most practical Foreign Language,” , authored by one of my colleagues, Richard Shryock. Dr. Shryock has subsequently been invited to address advisors of the freshman and sophomores in the College of Business to talk about the importance of foreign languages generally and French specifically.

Over the last ten years we have had over a l00% increase in the number of majors, from about 45 to 90. Perhaps some of these “marketing” strategies have contributed to the record number of majors we have in our French program. We also recruit students in many different ways. We call all students who have been admitted to Virginia Tech who have declared French as their major. We can spend up to one hour talking with these high school students, and sometimes their parents about our program. We continually suggest to students that they become majors or minors. This individual attention makes a difference to students; they often feel flattered by such a small overture. When these potential majors come to our school, we may take a half hour or more to explain our program, the advantages of study abroad etc. I also believe that our program’s success is particularly on account of the genuine interest and care that all of my colleagues have towards our majors and minors. Our majors have referred to the French program as “a gem” where there is a “family-like atmosphere.”

We have record number enrollments with a very “traditional” French program. For the major, students are required to take:

• Two advanced level grammar, conversation, and composition courses Fr 3105 and 3106,
• Four out of five French/Francophone culture, civilization and/or literature courses
a) Two are French culture and civilization courses, Fr 3205 (Celts-the French revolution) and 3206 (French Revolution-21st century)
b) Two are French literature survey courses, Fr 3305 (Middle Ages-17th century) and 3306 (18th – 21st century)
c) One is an Introduction to Francophone literatures and cultures, French 3314
• French for Oral Proficiency, French 3126
• Advanced Writing Proficiency, French 4154
• Two French topics courses, French 4314 (Often taught with a cultural studies approach)

Since 1998, our French program has been collaborating with Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business in order to enrich our French course offerings by increasing the number of specialized language courses for students studying business and related fields. These changes have formed the foundation of a larger set of innovative curricular developments between the business college and the French program, by jointly writing and receiving a United States Department of Education Title VI grant, spring 2001. Working together, the French program has created two business French courses, a three-track French for Business minor, and a certificate program in that same field. We hope to attract new majors and minors from business, engineering, and international studies. Except for the certificate program, which was implemented fall 2003, all other initiatives have yet to be reviewed by our university curriculum committee. It will take at least five to ten years to evaluate whether they help increase our enrollments further as well as attract non-liberal arts and social science students.

Beyond simple student exchanges, our collaborations have resulted in a dual degree program where Business school undergraduate students can obtain a BS from Virginia Tech and a Master’s degree from the Institut National des Télécommunications (INT) in five years and a separate agreement that allows students to complete a Virginia Tech MBA and Master’s degree from the INT in less time than both degrees separately. These dual degree programs not only distinguish our programs nationally, for our students earn a French degree from that grande école, but they have allowed us to recruit and retain highly talented students. Naturally, such opportunities may only be pursued if students have a strong background in business and French (If you wish to view these Business and French options in more detail). We are proud of these initiatives, but since our three-track French for Business minors are not yet in place, it is fair to say that students remain drawn to our program for its core curriculum, not its extra offerings.

As stated earlier, the scholarship on Cultural Studies has produced polarized positions when debating the expansion of literary studies’ canon. As is typical with most dichotomies, we should be wary of either/or propositions. The approach we have taken at Virginia Tech combines both canonical texts with a Cultural Studies approach, which includes non-literary and non-canonical texts. The success we have had at Virginia Tech and the manner in which we have blended curricula and methodological approaches is in fact a national trend concerning advanced undergraduate French courses taught in the target language in BA, MA, and PhD granting departments, according to a 1999 survey by Goldberg and Wells, Associate Director and Director of the MLA’s Office of Foreign Language Programs.

The survey was sent to 2,631 departments of foreign languages and literatures among which 1,962 answered (75%). They represent the full gamut of US institutions (undergraduate, graduate, community colleges, public, private, church-related with a student population between less than l000 students to over 15,000 students). Goldberg and Wells state that the majority of French programs consist of language, literature and/or culture courses. More than half of the advanced courses taught in French place more emphasis on literary than on non-literary texts (53.4%). Half of the programs vary their approach and create syllabi using canonical literature with some non-canonical literature based on race, class, or gender. Forty-three percent of the responding universities teach canonical literature organized by periods, authors, and genres. 27.3% offer courses in French for Business or French for Special purposes.

The table below condenses French programs’ enrollment figures between fall 1995 and fall 1999: In particular, statistics measured the change in the number of students who took introductory or upper division French courses and the number of students who became majors, double majors, or minors in French.

Table: Enrollment changes in French programs between fall 1995 and fall 1999

Change in the number of students	Lower enrollments	Higher enrollments	Stable enrollments	Higher or stable enrollments (the last two categories combined)
Who took introductory level courses	36.3%	43.3%	20.4%	63.7%
Who took upper division courses	38.3%	43.2%	18.5%	61.7%
Who became majors	36.3%	44.5%	19.2%	63.7%
Who selected French as one double major	5.4%	59.3%	35.3%	94.6%
Who chose French as a minor	5.4%	68.4%	26.2%	94.6%

 

The results of this survey demonstrate that French enrollments at degree granting institutions are healthy. We should feel optimistic, therefore, about the future of French Studies Programs. Between 1995 and 1999, more programs remained stable or experienced an increase in enrollments than those who experienced a decline in enrollments. We arrive at this conclusion by comparing the first column (lower enrollments) with the last column in bold print (higher or stable enrollments). Goldberg and Welles attribute French programs’ successes to the changes that have occurred in restructuring the French curriculum (186).
In conclusion, the answer to the question “How should we (re)design our French Studies curriculum?” is that we should continue to place great emphasis on literature. This should not be looked at as a move backward toward a “traditional-style” program. Rather, we must find ways to articulate how this curricular choice fits into the needs and goals of present-day universities. Moreover, if we expand our “canon” while exercising “responsible eclecticism” in the selection of our texts, we will uphold the integrity of our field. If our methodologies and pedagogy continue to train our students to become autonomous, confident and rigorous readers, thinkers and writers, we will also remain responsible educators. These skills train students to be more intelligent, thoughtful citizens, regardless of the profession they choose.

Bibliography

Du Bois, Page et al. "The Role of Literature in Culture Studies: Is Literature Obsolete?" Philological Association of the Pacific Coast 37 (2002): 10-29.

Essif, Les. "The Literature of Foreign Language Programs; The Road to Cultural Studies is Not Paved with Literary History… Tick Tock… Tick Tock." Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL) Bulletin 34.1 (2002): 15-20.

Franklin Phyllis. "From the Editor." Profession 2001. New York: MLA, 2001. 1-3.

Furman, Nelly. "French Studies: Back to the Future." Profession 1998: New York: MLA, 1998. 68-80.

Goldberg, David and Elizabeth B. Welles. "Successful College and University Foreign Language Programs 1995-99: Part 1." Profession 2001. New York: MLA, 2001. 171-210.

Grossberg, Lawrence. "The Sins of Cultural Studies." The Future of Cultural Studies: Essays in Honour of Joris Vlasselaers. Eds. Jan Baetens and José Lambert. Louvain: Leuven UP, 2000. 23-34.

Guillory, John. "The Period of Literature." PMLA 115.7 (2000): 1972-77.

Hall, Donald E. "A Changing Profession: Interviews with J. Hillis Miller, Herbert Lindenberger, Sandra Gilbert, Bonnie Zimmerman, Nellie McKay, and Elaine Marks." Professions: Conversations on the Future of Literary and Cultural Studies. Ed. Donald E. Hall. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2001. 224-86.

Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. "After Three Decades of Crisis: What Is the Purpose of a PhD Program in Foreign Languages?" PMLA 116 (2000): 1228-38.

Kelly, Mike. "The Stranger's Gaze: The Emergence of French Cultural Studies." The Future of Cultural Studies: Essays in Honour of Joris Vlasselaers. Eds. Jan Baetens and José Lambert. Louvain: Leuven UP, 2000. 107-21.

LeHir, Marie Pierre. "French Cultural Studies in the US; A Case Study." Sites 1.1 (1997):171-90.

_____. "Defining French Cultural Studies." The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 29 (1996): 76-86.

Lewalski, Barbara K. "Critical Issues in Literary Studies." Profession 1993. New York: MLA, 1993. 41-42.

Petrey, Sandy. "When did Literature Stop Being Cultural?" The French Review 28.3 (1988): 12-22.

_____. "French Studies/Cultural Studies: Reciprocal Invigoration or Mutual Destruction?" The French Review 68.3 (1995): 381-92.

Porter, Laurence. "The Present State of Nineteenth-Century French Studies." The French Review 75.6 (2002): 1213-34.

Schor, Naomi. "The Righting of French Studies: Homosociality and the Killing of 'La pensée 68.'" Profession 1992. New York: MLA, 1992. 28-34.

Swaffar, Janet. "Major Changes: The Standards Project and the New Foreign Language Curriculum." Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL) Bulletin 30.1 (1998): 34-37.

Thompson, James. "Report on the Session 'The Status of Literary History.'" PMLA 115 (2000): 1261-62.