Transilvania University of Brasov Faculty of Languages and Literatures Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures
CONFERENCE ON BRITISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES
8th Edition
Transilvania University Press Bra§ov
Réka M. CRISTIAN University of Szeged, Hungary
Thc last twenty years brought radical changes in the higher education on the global level; these had profound impact on liberal arts, humanities and. implicitly, on the reception and pracuce ol American Studies on the local and regional level. The focus of the talk will be on the current state of the American Studies in Hungary and Romania; will scrutinize specific aspects in the institutionalization of the discipline and its professional associations and will survey some pertinent publications in the field. My inquiry will revolve around the concepts of cultural crossroads, ‘national’ and transnational tum(s) in American Studies; will discuss the diversity and transformation of rhe discipline here and now and scrutinize the ways in which wc can - while struggling with requirements for the new American Studies BA. MA and postgraduate programs - find and implement critical alternatives to prevailing paradigms of current American Studies.
In discussing the current agenda of American Studies (AS) in Hungary and Romania first one lias to talk about the current state of this transdisciplinary field at global, regional and local level. Many roads have been taken in approaching AS and manv yet wait to be traveled.
American Studies has been undergoing continuous changes since its emergence as a field and as a discipline. Today, it reflects not only a field of study and research locating itself in a permanent “crisis” as well as in a continuous redefinition of it subject(s) and itself (Kcrber 1989, 419) but also aims to show the perception of AS in and outside the culture it was designed to represent.
Theory* and Practice: Roads Taken and Not Taken
In June 1999, the American Studies International journal featured an unusual collection of roundtable talks held by several chairs of national and
12 Rcka M. Cnsrian
international Amencan Studies associations, edited from the 1998 Seattle Conference of the Amencan Studies Association (ASA), which, on one hand, gave a bird’s eye view on the AS state-of-the-art and, on the other hand, posed crucial questions that skillfully problemattzcd a sum of specific issues concerning the state of this “intellectual borderland” at the turn of the century (Tucker 1999, 22) in several areas across the globe: reflections came from New Zealand, USA. Canada, japan and Turkey.
The roundtable consisted of a map of discoveries seasoned with pragmatic solutions. Bruce Tucker revealed that in 1998 from the sixty - cighr universities in Canada, only four had AS programs while Canadian Studies were at thirty-eight universities (Tucker 1999, 20-1). The perimeters of the AS in Japan were drawn by skepdeal attitudes Japanese institutions (the University of Tokyo and Doshisha University in Kyoto) had about this discipline, which were also topped by a culturally coded and historically conditioned nmiditv about involvement in political issues, especially if those meant direct involved with the polidcs of the US (Sato 1999, 15). Goniil Pultar's insightful contriburion unveiled the imagined community of AS from a Non-Chnstian, Non-Western environment and emphasized that AS in Turkey was a means to exercise discourses of freedom because the practice of the field enhanced the
“possibility of doing new things in a manner that is not possible in other disciplines” (Pultar 1999, 12). Pultar also drew the attention to the ossified, elitist and still proliferating institutional hierarchical structures (and anachronistic methods), as well as to the patriarchal, authoritative set-ups that obstructed the natural development of the discipline in his country (Pultar 1999, 14). And - I would add - in many others, as well.
For Brenda Dixon-Gottschild - the only American fellow from the above-mentioned roundtable - American studies was a private matter and individual involvement in terms of her own scholarship and research area, while for the New Zealandian Maureen Montgomery the internationalization of the field could be solved by inviting non-US based, foreign scholars from diverse countries to contribute to the US- based scholarly community of AS as opposed to previous scholarly practices that were primarily “radianng out from the United States”
(Montgomery 1999, 5).
These and many similar pragmatic issues discussed during grassroots type of roundtables and talks were main topics of other important AS forums, which sought to point out at the outmost importance of new
strategies in ‘reading’ America. In the 2002 Presidential Address to the ASA, Stephen Sumida echoed the internationalization of the discipline (as did also Paul l^autcr, Alice Kessler-Harns, Emory Elliott) stressing that AS is internationally “performed by scholars, indigenous to their nations or their nations of origin” (Sumida 351) whose contributions are imperative for the field. Two years later, Shelley Fisher Fiskin inaugurated the “transnanonal turn” in AS by underlining the fact that
“collaboration across the borders can do much to improve and build on existing institutional structures” (39). She claimed that “[ojutside the United States, American studies is sometimes constructed as being centered on the social sciences — economics, politics, foreign relations — while inside the United States it is dominated bv the humanities” (42).
Furthermore, she added that outside the United States, “students sometimes study American studies as a shrewd career move that will help them succeed economically in their own country, while in the United States students are more likely to study Amencan studies to develop critical analyses of Amencan culture and society” (ibid.). In Europe’s countries today, however, one needs to recognize the “different purposes, interests, and institutional configurations” (Rowe 171) the New Amencan Studies requires in the frame of this novel internationalism.
Nonetheless, most intriguing reflections come recently - as many AS scholars already observed - from the AS practitioners from outside the United States of Amcnca. Indeed, it is quite revealing to see how the academic interpretive communities of the larger European region and its subsequent areas currendy deal with die discipline. 'Ihe first comprehensive, electronic compilation on die current state of American Studies in F.urope was the European journal of American Studies (EJAS) published as a “flexible” (Chenetier 2006) and - I have to add - very accessible manner (in comparison with the hard copies of several other publications). This journal gathered the development of national AS and staged an up-to date situation by showing “the potential new dimension”
(ibid.) of the discipline across Fluropc, as presented by the members of the European Association for Amencan Studies (EAAS) themselves.
The first online issue (online in 2006) featured rhe writings of members from Austria, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom. Richard Ellis (from the University of Birmingham) sees this European e-joumal that surveys the
14 Rcka M. Cristian
so-called “USAmerican studies” in Europe as “fundamentally misconceived” and “even retrograde” (Ellis 2006, 14. Sec also the H- NFIT on the use of this concept). Despite some features that ignited subsequent criticism, this journal has numerous ments in being the inaugural ffee-access and most extensive compilation insofar about the state of the discipline m Europe. The pioneering enterprise edited by Marc Chenener - then the President of the EAAS - is more than welcome for all of us, who are working in the - still emerging - field of these studies in different regions of Europe, because it charts the situation of AS and its institutionalization with special focus on the discipline (and/or its versions) m our post-communist countries.
It seems that AS in post-communist areas shares common features with the current state of AS in “crisis” (Kerber 419). These are due to the strategies of its re-definition(s) through the interdisciplinary domain of current shifting political and academic discourses. Pertinent examples of such schemes in mapping and practicing AS can be found in a number of Presidential Addresses of the American Studies Association (ASA). In 1997, for example, Patncia Nelson Limerick indirectly defined the (general) field of AS when she delineated the research area of those studying the American West. She observed that those researchers who study this American zone “have no borders, no limits, no division, by subject matter, of insiders and outsiders,” except for the fact that they are brought together by their “shared interest in this very arbitrarily defined region, the American West” (Nelson Limerick 455). According to one of the best definitions so far, Nelson Limerick locates American Studies as “the place of refuge for those who cannot find a home tn the more conventional neighborhoods, the sanctuary for displaced hearts and minds, the place where no one is fully at ease” (452). Worded differendy, AS is an interdisciplinary branch of knowledge that celebrates alterity in a transnational way. To introduce a technical term for the AS lexicon, Nelson Limerick opted for an unusually vernacular expression that could go “along with the construction and representation and producuon and hvbridity and transnationalism,” which later she coined, due to the complexity of the concept, “a heck of a filing” (457).
This “heck of a thing” is the road now taken today by us in Hungarian American Studies and, 1 am sure, there is a similar “heck ot a thing” in Romania on the road now taken by my Romanian colleagues. To operate with this “hcck of a thing” means first to locate both “die hcck” and
“the thing” in the environment of our universities and institutions
practicing new* things as part of their de-centered discourses of freedom, all fuelled by individual involvement in specific research topics and areas that are concerned with what many still try to define as AS. “One of the most significant events in the intellectual and social history of the last century,”
Nelson Limerick added, was that “academics invented the concept of culture, and then completely lost control of it” (466). In the twenty-first century, we have to wisely adapt this branch of learning in order to understand new things about ourselves and the world around us, instead of losing control of the term. In other words, in this era of omnipresent digital technology, we need to explore how the locally nuanced human agency and its institutional context can be best ‘linked’ with the transnational spaces invoked and contained bv a global field of study.
American Studies in the United States of America
When talking about AS, one has to be aware of the problems involved in the name of the discipline (Radway 1 -32) and focus on the developments m the methods and theories that percnmallv shape it. These versions of local, regional, national American Studies reflect the ways this discipline institutionalizes itself in the national, regional or in global professional associanons, in the number and study fields of its members, in die structure and content of the academic curricula, and in pertinent publications (articles, essays, books, reviews, journals, internet sites, blogs). W hen talking about Hungarian and Romanian examples, I will attempt to map these structural elements.
Let me first start with a succinct detour on how the discipline began in the US and then 1 will focus on how it began m our countries and universities, accordingly. The beginnings of the AS date back to the 1930s when the first American Civilizanon courses were introduced at Yale, George Washington, Harvard, Pennsylvania, and Smith, continuing in the 1940 and 1950s when American Civilization programs in several universities offered “students enormous freedom to construct their own curricula,'' which, in turn, enabled them to innovate their studies so as to fit their own personal academic career (Kcrber 417). Interesting to note that today only a number of American colleges and universities have separate AS programs or subprograms; even more paradoxical, as more AS departments outside the US struggle to open and legitimize themselves, many American colleges and universities run AS as an interdepartmental program, hold AS (mostly post-gradual) schemes under the name of American Civilization or History of American Civilization, or have no such program at all. Does this mean that today
16 Réka M- Crisuan
universities outside the US are today more interested in AS than Americans themselves?
Tt is difficult to file the exact stages in the evolution of the discipline but perhaps one can attempt to categorize its main turns on the basis of the institutional establishments and political agendas behind them. The first phase lasted up to the World War II and clearly it was the founding period of AS with heralding names as Vernon Louis Parnngton, Perry Miller, etc: the second encapsulated the period of the Cold War with its cssentialist American cxceprionalism. The third stage, during the 1990s, was the interval of transition towards a posthegemomc and rather comparativist AS, while the fourth phase, starting from 9/11, 2001, heralded the post-national, transnational and the New American Studies.
The paramount forums for AS researchers are the ASA, founded in 1951, the oldest and the largest association devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history in the United States and the American Quarterly. established in the 1950s, as ASA’s premier academic journal. The internationalization of the discipline today is reflected by the establishment of the International American Studies Associanon (1ASA) founded in 2000 in Leiden and the publication of Comparatm American Studies: An International Journal (C.4S) three vears later, as well as the apparition of the free online academic Journal oj
Transnational American Studies (Jl'AS) issued in 2009. together with manv other currently bourgeoning international publications. AS, as transnational locus of knowledge, dwells now officially in more and more sites worldwide.
American Studies in Hungary
AS in Hungary became formally institutionalized after the Budapest conference of the EAAS in 1985, which clearly held a “political and a scholarly” (Rozsnyai 2006) importance in starting the AS department and program at the University of Szeged, then called József Attila University.
Bálint Rozsnyai, the founder of department, outlined the rationale of the AS program, which “had to be articulated in the face of the ideological position (in the process of gradual disintegration, yet entrenched in the official world of the academe) that considered the US as the leader and prime specimen of disintegrating capitalism and imperialism” (ibid.).
Since its beginnings, AS in Szeged, which is today a full BA to MA/PhD program, has promoted a hyphenated Szeged-Amencanist vantage point and a particular dialogic dynamics in understanding the United States and
American culture in general. “jTJn Hungary we have a special understanding of American culture,” Rozsnyai stated, in a similar way as Romanians, Poles, Czech, Slovaks, and other nations have “their own special understanding of it” (ibid.). This particular interpretation of America on behalf of each nation “is not the product of an cssentialist position” but the outcome the post-cold war paradigm shift coupled with “of a series of interactions of various factors,” among them, the US itself (ibid.). As members of the European Union, both Hungary and Romania have become “part of a transnational and post-nationalist entity” (ibid.) and, as such, have a fresh, matter-of-fact exercise in the transnational setting on of their own notions of America.
The main centers of AS in Hungary that offer undergraduate and graduate training besides the American Studies Dcpamnent from the Institute of English and American Studies, University of Szeged, are the Budapest-based Eotvos I .orand University's (ELTE) AS Department, which was established as an independent program in 1990 with a PhD program starring in 2000, and Kossuth Lajos University’s (today University of Debrecen) program of the North American Department, founded in 1991 with a doctoral program accredited in 1993. Courses in American Studies - as a component of the still quite inclusive English Studies - are taught at the University of Pecs ('Department of English Literatures and Cultures), in Eger, Yeszprem, Nyircgyhaza and Szombathely. The Hungarian Association for American Studies (HAAS), established in 1992, has been a member of the FA AS since 1994. The Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HIE.AS) is a hard copv national publication that developed from the Hungarian Studies in English which was the national academic journal for both English Studies and AS texts in the past four decades. Todav, the Americana E-Journal of American Studies in Hungary issued in 2005 and edited by members of the American Studies Department from the University of Szeged, is the only open access, online per-reviewed publication in the country that serves exclusively as an educational and academic forum for all scholars and students having interest in the field(s) of AS.
It is interesting to note that AS is still perceived bv many colleagues and hymen in Hungary as integral part of the colonial discourse of the overarching Anglophone Culture of ‘English.’ Despite its growing popularity among students and researchers, the discipline inhabits a close to marginal position in the higher forums of Hungarian scholarly world.
The Hungarian Scientific Academy, which is “still a major institution ro
18 Reka M. Cnsuan
affect decisions about what is to be considered academically creditable and worthy of scholarly attention—and funds” (Federmaycr 2006) leaves AS mostly “unacknowledged as a ‘serious’ area of study" (ibid.)- Despite of this condescending attitude on the part of the Academy, AS departments have always “regarded themselves as major sites of innovative efforts in course design, pedagogy, research, and various scholarly activities” (ibid.).
American Studies in Romania
According to The Romanian Association for Amencan Studies (RAAS) website there are five main AS centers in Romania: at the University of Bucharest, at Babe$>-Bolyai University, Cluj at Alexandru loan Cuza University, Ia$i, at Ovidius University, Constanta and University of West in Timisoara. The first graduate program in AS opened its doors at the School of Foreign Languages and Literatures from the University of Bucharest in 1996 under die leadership of Rodica Mihaila (Luca 2006).
In 1999 the B.A. program in AS was implemented at the same school that has served since, as Ioana Luca wrote in her comprehensive outline of AS in Romania, as the country’s mam “center for creative muld- and interdisciplinary study and teaching about the United States” (ibid.). 'Hus center has issued a number of internationally acclaimed publications and projects that deal widi issues of globalization and transnational discourses, among which is the 2007 project on Romanian Cultural Space in Transatlantic Perspective. From Postcommunism to Postadherence and the electronic The [Inter!Section: An iUnderlGraduate American Studies Journal (2009).
The situation of AS at Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, delineated by Manus Jucan in the first issue of the EJAS, showed that an interdisciplinary MA in AS began in 1997 in Cluj, which was then included in the master programs of the Faculty of European Studies in 1999, with the establishment of a BA ma|or in AS in 2004 Quean in Luca 2006). According to Iulia Blanupi, the discipline at the Alexandni loan Cuza University in Iasi began after 1995, when the English Department started a one-year MA program, w'hich later evolved into a two-year MA program; in 2004 a BA in AS was also established (Blanuja in Luca 2006). Starting with the academic year of 2005-2006, students at Ovidius University in Constanta had the option for majonng in AS at the Faculty of Letters after successfully passing a “three-year undergraduate program followed by a three-semester graduate program in Anglo-American Studies focusing on both British and Amencan culture” (Ludmila
Martanovski in Luca 2006). AS at University of West, Timisoara officially began with the academic year of 2004-2005 when - as Cristina Cheveresan wrote - the English Department devised a new and innovative MA program, meant to cover as many areas connected to AS as currendy possible (Cheveresan in Luca 2006).
Apart from the above-mentioned centers, many other institutions of higher education in Romania (universities in Craiova, Galap, Oradea, as well as in Alba lulia, Bacau, Sibiu, Suceava, Ploicjti, Pitc$ri) teach increasingly popular topics in AS. In Baia Mare, for example, there is a
“significant Amencan component offered to students enrolled in the Romanian and English Language and Literature segment and, to a lesser extent, to those in Applied Modem Languages undergraduate programs”
(Luca 2006). At the Faculty’ of letters from Transilvania University in Brasov for example, Cultural Studies majors can specialize in a 3-year program in American Studies by attending an impressive array of courses selected on most varied and current issues on Amencan culture and civilization. Some samples (courtesy’ of Liliana Hamzea) from the 2009- 2010 academic year include: Amencan Mass Media, Cultural Studies, American and English literary theory and criticism, American democracy and civilization, Urban Culture, LTS History and US literature, US Institutions and Life, Political Theory-, Popular Culture, Art and Society, American Film and Visual Culture, Education in the US, Cultural Intercommunication, Cultural Identities.
Romanian electronic publications with international presence that have serious AS contribution are the Bucharest-based The [Inter]Sections, the seven editions (2003-2009) of the online Coherence Proceedings of British and American Studies from Transilvania University in Bra$ov, as well as the Romanian Journal of English Studies (RJEAS) and British and American Studies (BAS), both published online by the University of West, Timisoara. The Romanian Association for American Studies (RAAS) was founded in 2004 and has been since a member of the HAAS. Despite its prominent presence m the higher education curricula, the discipline was included on the national list of specializations in Romania only in 2005 as “the outcome of a long struggle which brought official recognition to an interdisciplinary field established long ago in the Western world” (Luca 2006).
20 Réka M. Cristian
The Road Now Taken
Randolph Bourne’s ideas from “Trans-National America” (1916) have been resurrected by the larger field of AS for a consensus that includes the cosmopolitan heritage and an equally important “consideration of national and transnauonal undertakings,” all under the aegis of transnational discourses that became “hybrid forms” and continuous dialogues “between cxceptionalism and internationalism” from which
“the question of nation cannot be excluded” (Szélpâl 2009). According to Mel van Elteren, the process of Americanization with its cultural encounters invoking local assirrulanon and transculturanon, introduces a
“differentiated view on the mediating processes invoked in the appropriations of .American exemplars and imports by local recipients, and a conceptualization that enables us to capture relevant processes at the transnational level from a non-statecentered perspective” (Elteren 365). Globalization enhances us to make sense of AS “from within our local positions” (Rozsnyai 2005). Nevertheless, “American Studies is not Amcncan property” and AS in Hungary should produce Hungarian interpretations of America (ibid.) as AS in Romania should produce its own interpretations of America. By balancing the national and international aims with different local interests (Rowe 177), inside and outside the academia, one must learn to live and act locally while thinking globally and to be able to present the local m a global level. AS, as a newly established discipline in our European regions, seems currcndy to be the best medium for this strategy.
Endowed with a similar cultural and political heritage we, AS people caught in the web of the Bologna process, can achieved this balance by establishing, to paraphrase Robert Frost's lines, ‘a road now taken,’ a freeway still under construction - as we have seen from the examples above - that envisages the synchronization of our present and future work with the human and technical agency involved m AS under the following guidelines:
1) we need to continuously search for and apply the new paradigms in shaping popular, market and context onented, up-to-date curricula from BA to PhD level,
2) we must start, develop and promote pertinent directions and topics of research in the field by involving undergraduate and graduate student participation and feedback,
3) we should inmate team projects at interdepartmental, transnational level facilitated by the new technologies looking with “partners at other institutions in American Studies or other interdisciplinary programs with
whom we might design collaborative, trans-tnstitutional courses (Howard 2000) in order to
4) make our presence evident in time at the international level m the currently blooming (primarily internet-based) forums and publications of the discipline.
Alan B. Howard, one of the main advocates of the use of new technologies m the field, said that today, when transnational
“contributions shape the future AS especially with the decentralization of the academy and the implication of individual research,” one should be aware and use the “radical transformative powers of new forms of technolog}' (hypertexts availability' and live communications) in making the achievements public in a relatively short period of rime” (Alan B.
Howard, 1999, 2000). These databases are even more effective democratic tools for interrogating culture through URLs, listservs, blogs, discussion rooms and lists, mailing lists, and virtual conferences. The use of multimedia in the current practice of AS in our regions enhances the
“organic inclusion” of unconventional histones of the non-canonized, cultural paradigms that have been treated as “naive or amateur” images, objects, sounds, events” within any former msntutionalized frame of AS (Cristian and Dragon 2006).
AS in Hungary and Romania is both a young discipline and “a dynamic process of cultural and technological dissemmauon that has already left the building of the Humanities and does not even think of asking, as the nagging character of Donkey m the movie Sbnk: ‘Arc we there vet?’
(ibid.) We might not be there but we are on the new road. We, as
“multiple users of the curricular and extracurricular multimedia society should be more aware of the fact that the most important factors behind the technological apparatus and, at the same time, the most underutilized resource in any university, especially m the context of our regional New American Studies in the digital age, are the students themselves” (ibid.).
Furthermore, American Studies in Europe, and especially in our countries, will be new and challenging “as long as there are scholars who do not feel compelled to follow the most-traveled roads” (Chenetier, 2008).
22 Reka M. Cnstran
REFERENCES
American Studies Association (ASA). (2010). Available:
http://www.thcasa.net/ Access: March 22, 2010.
Chenetier. Marc (2006) “Introduction " European Journal of American Studies, Available: http://ejas.revues.org/document528.html. Access: March
22, 2010.
----. “ ’New* ’American Studies:’ Exccptionalism redux?” European Journal of American Studies, EJAS 2008-2. Available: http://ejas-revucs.org/
document7453.html Access: April 3, 2010.
Cnstian, Rcka M. & Zoltán Dragon (2005) “American Studies in the Age of Visual/Electronic Reproduction.” .Americana, Vol. 1, No.l. Fall.
Available: http://pnmus.arts.u-szcgcd.hu/amcrican/amencana/
vollnol/cnndz.htm Access: March 26, 2010.
Elliott, Emory (2007) “Diversity in the United States and Abroad: What Does It Mean When American Studies in Transnational?”
.AmericanQuarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1, March 2007, 1-25.
Ellis, Richard (2006) “USAmerican Studies in the United Kingdom,"
European Journal of .American Studies, 2006. Available: http://ejas.rcvues.
org/documcnt448.html. Access: March 28, 2010.
Elteren, Mel van. “Rethinking Americanization Abroad: Toward a Critical Alternative to Prevailing Paradigms.” The Journal of American Culture, Vol 29, No. 3, 345-367.
European Association for American Studies. Available: lmp://w\vw.eaas.eu/
Access: April 3, 2010.
Fedcrmayer. Eva. “American Studies in Hungary,” European Journal of American Studies, Available: http://ejas.revues.org/documcnt451.html.
Access: March 29, 2010.
Fisher Fishkin, Shelley (2005) “Crossroads of Cultures: The Transnational Turn in American Studies”. Presidential Address to the American Studies Association. November 12, 2004.” .American Quarterly, vol. 57, No. 1, March, 17-57.
Hamzea, Liliana. Personal correspondence, February 12, 2010.
Howard, Alan B. (1999) “American Studies and the New Technologies”
Available: http://xroads.Virginia.cdu/~AS@UVA/SAAS/madnd.html Access: March 31,2010.
----. (2000) “Interdisciplinary Studies and New Technologies: A Case Study.” The Technology Source, November/December. Available:
http://lcchnologysource.org/ article/ interdisciplinary_studies_and_ne w_tcchnologies:_a_case_study/ Access: March 31, 2010.
Humanities and Social Sciences Online (H-N1ZT). (2002) “Discussion Forum about ‘American, United Statian, Gringo.” March 26-30. Available:
http://h-nct.msu.cdu/cgi-hin/logbrowsepl.-1 tcx^lxA: list=h- latam&user=&pw=&month=0203, Access: April 2, 2010.
Hungarian Association for American Studies. Available: http://haashungary.
btk.pte.hu/ Access: Apnl 2, 2010.
International .American Studies Association (LAS A). Available:
http://www.iasaweb.org/ Access: Apnl 2. 2010.
Kcrber, Linda K. (1989) Diversity and Transformation of American Studies,” American Quarterly, September, VoL 41, No. 3, 415-431.
Luca, Ioana. (2006) “American Studies in Romania,” European Journal of -American StudiesAvailable; htrp://ejas.revues.org/d(jcument346.html.
Access: March 21, 2010.
Montgomery, M., Dixon-Gottschild, B., Sato, H., Pultar, G. (1999)
’Roundtable: The Imagined Community of International .American Studies ’ American Studies Internationa!, June, VoL XXXVIII, No.2. 4-23.
Nelson Limerick, Patricia. (1997) “Insiders and Outsiders: The Borders of the USA and the Limits of the ASA; Presidential Address to the American Studies Association, 31 October 1996.” American Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 3, September, 449-69.
Radwav, Janice. (1999) “What’s in a Name? Presidential Address to the American Studies Association, 20 November. 1998 American Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1.1-32.
Rowe, John C. (21X12) “Postnarionalism, Globalism and the New .American Studies.” In Donald E. Pease and Robv Wiegman. eds. The Futures of .American Studies. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 167-182.
Rozsnyai, Bálint. (2005) “Twenty Years of American Studies in Szeged, Hungary.” Americana, VoL l.No.l FalL Available: http://primus.arts.
uszeged-hu/american/americana/vollnol / rozsnyai.htm, Access:
March 28, 2010.
24 Rcka M. Cristtan
Sumida, Stephen H- (2003) “Where in the World Is American Studies?
Presidential Address to the American Studies Association, Houston Texas, November 15, 2002” American Quarter^, VoL 55, September, 333-351.
Szelpal, IJvia. (2009) “Transnational History; An American Perspective.”
Americana VoL 5, No. 2 Fall, Special Issue Proceedings of the 2008 HAAS Conference. Available; http://amencanaejoumaLhu/vol5no2/szelpal Access: March 25. 2010.
The Romanian Assodauon for American Studies. Available:
http://www.raas.ro/ Access: Apnl 5,2010.
