Discussing Ethnic Studies

Native People of North America. The Politics of Islamic Resurgence. Jewish Literature in America. Race, Nation, and Democracy.

These are some of the courses related to race and ethnicity offered by the Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) this year.

Jorge Domínguez, the Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government, would like to see more. He would also like to see the FAS expand its 60-strong complement of faculty members who devote a considerable portion of their scholarly work to aspects of race and ethnicity. (Additional faculty are based in Harvard's graduate and professional schools.)

He does not, however, favor creating a department.

Domínguez has thought long and hard about this subject. For the past two years, and earlier for two years, he has chaired the Faculty of Arts and Science's ad hoc Committee on Ethnic Studies, which oversees a program of visiting faculty, monitors the ethnic studies course listings, sponsors faculty workshops, and advises the Dean and the Faculty Council.

His own teaching and research focuses on the politics of Mexico and Cuba. His most recent book is Democratizing Mexico: Public Opinion and Electoral Choices (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). He holds a B.A. from Yale and master's and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard.

The teaching of ethnic studies has prompted discussions, conferences, and demonstrations at Harvard over the past few years. At other schools around the country, it has stirred more dramatic actions, such as hunger strikes and takeovers of buildings.

Domínguez prefers dialogue over drama. Last week, he discussed the status of ethnic studies at Harvard with Gazette reporter Debra Bradley Ruder and Harvard Crimson reporter Matthew Granade. What follows is an edited version of that interview.

What progress has been made in ethnic studies over the past five years as far as courses and faculty appointments are concerned?

I share the view with a variety of people that it would be a good idea for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to continue to build and develop the study of ethnicity. But I would emphasize that there has been a great deal of progress. Let's look at faculty appointments. Although the overall size of the Faculty has not grown for the last five years or so because of budget constraints, the number of faculty who teach or do research on race and ethnic studies in the United States has increased substantially. Since 1991, there have been eight senior appointments, three junior appointments, and four promotions from assistant to associate professor -- for a net expansion of nine full-time-equivalent positions. In the context of a faculty that isn't growing, I think this is pretty terrific. There are also many more faculty who study these issues in other parts of the world.

I would like this pattern to continue. I would like for there to be more courses that focus on the study of race and ethnicity in various parts of the world. Why? This is one of the great intellectual topics of all time.

In what sense?

People are prepared to kill each other over these sorts of differences. More generally, the attempt to understand how human beings come to define themselves and their relationships with others is subtle and complex and changing. For example, historian Roman Szporluk is looking at how Ukrainians came to think of themselves as Ukrainians and not Russians.

Looking ahead, do you think there will eventually be an ethnic studies department at Harvard?

My own analysis is that the speed and the number of appointments in ethnic studies has been greater precisely because several departments, each for its own reason, has said, "You know, we really do want someone here who does ethnic studies." As opposed to having everyone in ethnic studies at one site in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences so that everybody else can forget about the subject. Several departments have chosen to act, including Government, Sociology, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, Afro- American Studies, and Music. And that suggests that the model of having discipline-based departments is good for generating new appointments and courses in ethnic studies.

The second issue is whether it would make sense intellectually to have a department of ethnic studies. On that I have a fairly strong view, and the answer is "no." Why not? Ethnic studies is a subject within a wide variety of disciplines. And the way that most Harvard faculty do their work best is from within disciplines. If your interest is in ethnomusicology, you're probably very well served by studying in the Music Department. If you're interested in immigrant adaptation in communities, chances are you can do that best in the Sociology or Government departments. The notion that we would wrench faculty from their normal intellectual environments -- their departments and disciplines -- and create something called 'Ethnic Studies' doesn't make intellectual sense. It's sort of like taking a fish out of water. It also would remove people from departments where they can interact with those who work on similar subjects in many parts of the world.

Is that the consensus of Harvard faculty who study race and ethnicity?

One of the things I've done as chair of the Committee on Ethnic Studies is talk to a variety of faculty who have an interest in the study of ethnicity, and I have not found anyone yet who said, 'Yes, I am prepared to take the lead to organize a separate administrative unit in FAS.' Characteristically, you get people who say, 'I would like more faculty appointments, I would like more courses, I would like more coordination among people who work in the study of ethnicity, but I want to remain in my department.'

Ethnic studies can be found to some degree in almost every department in the social sciences, so you'd be creating a concentration that brings together dozens of departments. Intellectually it doesn't make sense; administratively it's a white elephant. It makes much more sense to have undergraduates work within the context of disciplines and then have a standing committee to help students and faculty locate connections between departments.

What about changing the status of your ad hoc [Dean's] committee to a standing committee?

I personally would like to transform the committee into a standing committee, and I think there is substantial support in the Faculty for this change. I have chaired both standing committees and Dean's committees, and there is a difference. It's a little hard to explain, but it's a difference I feel. A Dean's committee has a task, and that's what it does. A standing committee is chartered by a vote of the Faculty and [the charter] essentially says, 'Go out and promote this field.' Some standing committees try to raise funds to facilitate research by faculty and students, and they can work with departments to identify faculty who might be hired. This is different from the Committee on Degrees in History and Literature, which awards degrees and has a concentration. That's not what I'm talking about. I do not favor a department or a concentration in ethnic studies.

Our committee has been discussing a possible change in status for some time. I've met with the Faculty Council a number of times on this issue, and the discussions are evolving. My understanding is that some faculty members do not want a proliferation of standing committees, others believe there's no difference between a Dean's committee and a standing committee [on ethnic studies], and some do not believe this subject warrants a standing committee. I would like the Faculty Council at some point to take a formal vote on this, and my guess is that it might take place next fall.

Could you talk about the faculty members who study race and ethnicity in the FAS, and what kinds of subjects they cover?

The Committee on Ethnic Studies just sponsored a faculty workshop, open to the public, on the history and literature of the Chinese Diaspora, with Professor Wei-Ming Tu and Leo Ou-Fan Lee [in East Asian Languages and Civilizations] as the Harvard organizers. It was a very interesting workshop looking at both Chinese-Americans in the United States and Chinese communities in other parts of the world.

Or take a look at Sociology Professor Mary Waters, who teaches a course about comparative ethnic groups in the United States. Her own research tries to understand how groups of recent immigrants respond in the context of neighborhoods, households, factories, etc. She's interested in ethnic groups within the black community and what happens, for example, to recent immigrants from Jamaica. Do they speak American English, or West Indian English? Are they trying to mark themselves as Jamaicans, or as U.S. blacks?

Or Professor Werner Sollors, in English and Afro-American Studies. His interest is in the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of ethnicity. How is it that people come to think of themselves as members of an ethnic group, and how do they define their images in ways that evolve and change over time?

If you look at junior faculty, one of the things Peggy Levitt in Sociology is interested in is people who are, in some sense, living in airplanes -- who, for example, leave the Dominican Republic, come to the United States, work here for a little while, go back to the Dominican Republic, and then return. Now you have Dominican communities going back and forth, back and forth. It makes less sense to talk about immigrants. They are people who sometimes live in one place and sometimes in another.

There's another category of faculty who work on these issues outside the United States. One of the things I've tried to do is to bring these groups together for lunch so faculty can talk about how you study ethnicity both inside and outside the U.S.

Recently there have been protests in the Yard, banging on windows, and increased security. The students want a department or at least a degree in ethnic studies and more professors -- things that you seem to be saying are not intellectually sensible. . . .

Careful. I would like more research and teaching in ethnic studies at Harvard, understanding ethnic studies as a comparative field that includes the United States but is not limited to the United States. It also must have historical depth -- it is good to study 1996, but it is also important to study and understand the subject historically. So on that issue, I don't disagree with the view you characterize. Nor do I disagree with the view that there ought to be greater collaboration among the faculty already at Harvard. Nor do I differ with the view that the committee that I chair ought to become a standing committee. I differ from what you said only in regard to one issue: I don't think it is intellectually sound to have a department or concentration. So on a variety of important questions, there is no disagreement. Not only is there no disagreement, but the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, by making the appointments I alluded to before, is doing exactly what students have been asking for. It is inaccurate, strongly inaccurate, to say "Nothing is happening in ethnic studies at Harvard." That's just dead wrong.

As for the banging on windows, my own approach is to discuss with students or with faculty what I think are the intellectual merits. Banging on windows doesn't impress me. My views don't change by noise.

What do you think about the other student initiatives in recent years, like the conferences and forums?

I think they are very constructive. I'm delighted that students have organized conferences and engaged in other activities. I and other faculty collaborated with them on a forum in April. Several other faculty participated, as did the Dean of the Faculty, the Dean of the College, and the Dean for Undergraduate Education. The Committee on Ethnic Studies has met with students who are actively promoting the study of ethnicity and talked about things not very different from what we're discussing now. I've met with students on the Academic Affairs Committee of the Harvard Foundation a bunch of times, both formally and informally. I have tried to find ways to make sure their views are taken into account. One of the things we began doing when the program of visiting faculty began in 1989 is to encourage students to name faculty from other universities whom they would like us to invite. That practice has become less frequent among students in the last couple of years. I'd be delighted if students were to generate more suggestions for visiting faculty appointments.

How do students benefit from having ethnic studies based in existing departments and disciplines?

Suppose I begin with the notion that there is something unique about the study of ethnicity or something unique about a particular group. The only way I can assess that proposition intellectually is by comparing it to something else. The word 'unique' is inherently comparative. That means, say, comparing Bulgarian Americans to Irish Americans, or to Korean Americans, or to Bulgarians, Irish, and Koreans in other parts of the world in order to explore what may have shaped a particular group and how it sees itself. Similarly, if I am interested in the politics of ethnicity in the United States, I'll want to know how this differs from the politics of other sorts of things, like conflict over economic issues. The only way I can understand whether there is something unique about the politics of ethnicity is if I am in a Government Department concentration that allows me to do those kinds of comparisons.

How does the Afro-American Studies Department fit in with ethnic studies?

The experience of race in the United States is dramatically different from that of ethnicity. Ethnicity is much more plastic than race. And, at Harvard, the study of ethnicity is already a well-established subject in most departments in the humanities and the social sciences. It would be counterproductive to extract dozens of faculty from these departments to locate them artificially in one called "ethnic studies." Scholarship and teaching on ethnic studies are especially vibrant thanks to the contributions of various departments, disciplines, methodologies, and intellectual traditions.