Area Studies and the Challenge

of Globalization: Issues and Concerns†

Aparajita Gangopadhyay*

While presenting a historical outline of the genesis, growth and development of Area
Studies as a discipline, this paper focuses on its possible re-configuration in relation to
the contemporary processes of globalization. At a time, when there is considerable
scholarly scepticism regarding the continued consideration of the nation-state as a
preeminent framework for understanding society and culture (something Area Studies
has historically done), it is legitimate to interrogate the theoretical and methodological
wherewithal of Area Studies with a view to contribute to its self-reflexitivity. Even as
the various accounts of the institutional histories of Area Studies present it as a
non-starter in the context of the higher education system in India, this paper underlines
the need to address the broader questions concerning the production of knowledge
and the politics behind its subsequent disciplinary location. In this sense, this paper
can also be looked at as a modest attempt towards a conceptual history of Area
Studies in India amidst the prevailing pre-occupation with institutional narratives.

Introduction
Globalization has become a fashionable term since about the mid-1980s. As a
catch—all term to make sense of the contemporary phenomena and processes, it
has captured the imagination of both the experts and the public. Social scientists
never get tired of waxing eloquent on its virtues and vices. However, there is no
consensus even on a working definition on globalization among scholars. As the
concept is intended to cover a great variety of changes in socio-economic-politico-
cultural domain, naturally, it implies different things to the practitioners of different
disciplines. As Arjun Appadurai states:
Social scientists (especially economists) worry about whether markets and
deregulation produce greater wealth at the price of increased inequality.
Political scientists worry that their field might vanish along with their favorite
object, the nation-state, if globalization truly creates a world without borders.
Cultural theorists, especially cultural Marxists, worry that in spite of its
conformity with everything that they already knew about capital, there may
be some embarrassing new possibilities for equity hidden in its workings.
Historians, ever worried about the problem of the new, realize that

†
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the National Seminar on “Area Studies in the Era of
Globalisation” at the Centre for Latin American Studies, Goa University, October 7-8, 2003.

* Senior Lecturer, Centre for Latin American Studies, Goa University, Goa, India. E-mail: aganguly@unigoa.ac.in

©
642008 The Icfai University Press.
TheAllIcfai
Rights Reserved.
University Journal of International Relations, Vol. II, No. 4, 2008
 globalization may not be a member of the familiar archive of large-scale
historical shifts.1
The differences in approaches to and perspectives on globalization have given
rise to heated debates in the field of social sciences as well as in the popular
media. Today an enormous corpus of literature exists on the theme of
globalization. This paper is premised on the belief that changes wrought by
globalization and the increasing importance of transnational actors and
processes, call for new approaches from the discipline of Area Studies in
particular, and social sciences in general. The objective is to ask, and if possible,
attempt an answer to the question, whether globalization necessitates a
re-configuration of the disciplinary grids of Area Studies. If yes, then what could
be a tentative outline of this re-orientation? And, whether Area Studies is
adequately prepared to respond to this challenge of globalization in terms of its
theoretical and methodological wherewithal. What new challenges do Area
Studies encounter as it seeks to analyze the emerging forces of change? What
are the problems and prospects thrown up by globalization as far as the growth
of the discipline is concerned?
The interface between the forces of globalization and the impulses of
nation-state provides a new context to re-position the disciplinary enterprise of
Area Studies. After all, the two are never harmonious though they might appear
at times antagonistic and at times cooperative. Moreover, the increasing number
of non-territorial actors such as MNCs, transnational social movements, and
international and non-governmental organizations very often transcend the
scope of the state system, making it difficult to consider the nation-state as a
preeminent framework for understanding society and culture, something that
Area Studies has historically done notwithstanding its grand claims of being
cross-cultural and comparative. As transnational linkages reach ever-widening
areas of social life, national boundaries become more porous, and communities
and regions become increasingly interconnected and mutually dependent.
However, given its original context and subsequent growth trajectory, Area Studies
have been more focused on the unfolding of developmental processes within the
boundaries of the nation-state. It can be argued that the contemporary changes in
the global conditions have made it incumbent on the discipline, more than ever
to re-examine its constitutive premises in the new light. This re-examination assumes
added significance as it is bound to contribute to the self-reflexive impetus of the
discipline. Naturally, the change in the substantive context calls for a new type of
relationship between the students of Area Studies and the developmental needs of
the society. So far they have been too state-centric to conceive of alternative ways
of approaching global order.

1
Arjun Appadurai (2000), “Globalization and Area Studies: The Future of a False Opposition”,
The Wertheim Lecture Series, p. 1, Centre for Asian Studies Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Area Studies and the Challenge of Globalisation: Issues and Concerns 65

 The point of departure for Area Studies is at two macro points/factors: The world
order brought forth by the end of the World War II and, the attendant wave of
decolonization. The world scenario was such that it brought about changes in the
global order, which were contingent for Area Studies. The wave of decolonization was
sacred as it placed at the center, the state. Thus, making it the ‘actor’ in the newly
opened global arena. The central location of the state was also part of that nationalist
euphoria, which was visible in the post Second World War world. In this context, a
brief look at the macro-context of the emergence of Area Studies will be in order.

Historical Antecedents of Area Studies Programs

The creation of ‘special programs’, initially for research and subsequently for
teaching, is about 50 years old. When a particular region or an area becomes the
focus of attention, a number of disciplines begin to act in agreement. This process
can be traced to the beginning of the process of decolonization, and the initiative
for its development came mainly from the US. With the end of the World War II
and the decline and withdrawal of the old imperial powers, the emergence of the
US as a major player in the international scene, the need for a closer and more
systematic knowledge of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America was felt.
Once such Area Study programs became established in the US, their advantages
in terms of output in foreign policy making was visible and began to be widely
appreciated. Subsequently, such Area Studies centers were set up in other parts
of the world. In the last 50 years, such Area Study programs have grown to “meet
a combination of theoretical and practical demands. They have not grown in
accordance with any single plan, and convenience has played a large part in the
shape and form given to them”. 2
The areas covered under such programs differ not only in their geographical size
but also in their degree of homogeneity. The disciplines, which were set up for the
pursuit of Area Studies, have also been varied, although language and literature,
history and ethnography appear to provide a common core everywhere. Some of
the social sciences like ethnography have depended more on Area Studies than
others such as psychology and economics. According to Andre Béteille, “the extent
that Area Study reaches beyond existing political boundaries, it provides opportunities
for exploring larger and deeper historical, cultural and social identities”.3 Thus, it can
be understood that in the larger context of intellectual enquiry, Area Studies may
be viewed either as an end in itself or as a means to an end. For many, both within
and outside the area, a wider and deeper understanding of both languages and
religions, and of the social, political and economic arrangements in the area is a
desirable theoretical and practical objective in itself.4

2
André Béteille (2002), “Sociology and Area Study: The South Asian Experience”, in Sociology: Essays on
Approach & Method, p. 126, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., p. 128.

66 The Icfai University Journal of International Relations, Vol. II, No. 4, 2008
 Area Studies became synonymous with international studies in many parts of
the world. International studies was premised on a state-centric framework, and
in the course of time took other forms primarily as “comparative studies, with states
as units to be compared, or of ‘foreign policy’ studies in which the object was to
study the policies of states towards each other, rather than that of studying the
emergent characteristics of trans-state structures”.5

Area Studies and the University System: The Indian Scenario

The history of Area Studies programs in India could be traced to 1943 with the
creation of the Indian Council of World Affairs. It was followed by the establishment
of the Indian School of International Studies in 1955, along the lines of such
international studies and Area Studies programs in the West, especially the US.
It was purely an initiative of the Indian Government. In the 1960s, the University
Grants Commission (UGC) appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of
B Shiva Rao to look into the feasibility of such programs under the university system.
The Rao Committee made certain recommendations on the setting up of Area
Studies programs in various parts of the country. They were:
• Regional studies of different parts of the world should be encouraged in view
of the need for a larger number of Indian scholars adequately acquainted with
the historical, cultural, social and economic background of specific regions,
particularly those with which India has directly and more intimately concerned.
• Such studies should be promoted at a few select universities to start with,
and that scholars having the right aptitudes might be selected for deputation
to particular areas for a limited period to undertake intensive studies of the
problems of the region concerned.
• In the initial stages, the number of universities participating in the Area
Studies program should be kept down to the minimum in view of our limited
resources in terms of personal, foreign exchange, library facilities, etc.
• The Area Studies program should include the languages of the area
concerned as an essential feature.
• Priority might be given in the first instance to the region with which India
is more actively concerned, such as China, Japan, Southeast Asia, Africa and
Middle East.6
The UGC accepted the recommendations and appointed a Standing Advisory
Committee to advise the UGC regarding the development of Area Studies in India.
Subsequently, the Kothari Commission on Education submitted its report in 1967,

5
Immanuel Wallerstein (Ed.) (1996), Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on
the Restructruring of Social Spaces, pp. 83-84, Vistaar Publishers, New Delhi.
6
Anirudha Das Gupta (1997), “Area Studies and Universities”, in Ankush B Sawant (Ed.), Area Studies
Programmes in Indian Universities: An Appraisal and Review, pp. 33-40, Kalinga Publishers, Delhi.

Area Studies and the Challenge of Globalisation: Issues and Concerns 67

which upheld this idea. As a consequence, the UGC in consultation with the Ministry
of Education and Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) promoted this idea in selected
Indian universities. The objectives of such an action were to be three-fold.
• To train a body of scholars for specialized studies on the problems and
culture of the given areas;
• To develop inter-disciplinary research;
• To develop teaching and research in social science disciplines introducing
a comparative and inter-disciplinary dimension. 7
Thus, it was visualized that the Area Studies centres were expected to serve
national interests by being rich repositories on continuous up-dated scientific data,
on the basis of assiduous research, on politico-economic and socio-cultural aspects
of the life in various regions, especially those of vital interest to the country.
Area Studies have remained since then essentially foreign policy and bilateral
relations. They were in the past usually Ministry driven, as well as intrinsically linked
to the UGC. This was true of the larger discipline of International Relations as well.
Critically commenting on this aspect on Area Studies, Anirudh Gupta says,

the primary concern of Area Studies programs was India’s foreign and
bilateral relations, when contrasted to Area Studies programs in the West,
where micro and macro level issues of development policies and commerce
found place, and also included rich anthropological literature, tropical
medicine, travelogues, diaries, etc.8

Thus, Area Studies in India was constituted in a narrowly circumscribed

institutional framework compared to its conceptual and disciplinary breadth in the
West. Expectedly, it has often privileged institutional demands and expectations in
course of its subsequent growth and development. It would not be an exaggeration
to assert that Area Studies program in India has failed to transgress its birthmarks;
it has largely turned out to be what MEA and UGC expected it to be. This need not
have been the case. As Arjun Appadurai says:
If it is true that globalization is producing new geographies—of sovereignty,
of ideology, of capital and of statehood—and if it is also possible for Area
Studies to be reinvented as the study of interaction between regional worlds,
then critical research on globalization requires Area Studies more than ever.
But this new kind of Area Studies must be prepared to look at geography,
history, language and culture in new ways, not only as conditions and
heritages but as horizons and as projects.9

7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Arjun Appadurai, n. 1, p. 14.

68 The Icfai University Journal of International Relations, Vol. II, No. 4, 2008
 What was essential and necessary was that there was a need conceptual history
by focusing on how it responded to the then context. Can we practice Area Studies
with the same tools of analysis and modes of thinking if the context has changed?
Anirudh Gupta thinks otherwise: “In the era of globalization—interaction with
transnational actors to meet the challenges arising out of the globalization
paradigm … old ideologies need to be re-examined, especially in the economic
restructuring and privatization moves, like the spread of ethnicity … and the need
to develop new visions, tools of research and new theories”.10
Analyzing and criticizing the state is intrinsic to the study of Area Studies and
international relations, which places the “academic analyst at a distinct
disadvantage, since government officials can plausibly claim to understand the state
that they serve and represent better than any scholar perhaps could”. 11 Moreover,
there is a distinct lack of any theoretical orientation in the Indian study of Area
Studies. It is seen that research in Area Studies centers are neither theory driven,
nor method driven, nor even problem/issue driven but essentially events driven.
The aspect of content related to Area Studies in India also relates to the
essentially Anglo-American character of the discipline. With a paucity of scholarly
writings within the country, most researchers in the Area Studies centers tend to
depend upon western scholarly works. Moreover, it is clear that there exists a
confusion between the international relations and the Area Studies centers as it
is often assumed by many that both are one and the same merely because they
study an area which is ‘foreign’. Therefore, instead of both these disciplines
benefiting from each other, they have only ended in harming each other’s
interests.12 In addition, the limited exposure of students and society towards both
international relations and Area Studies have also kept the future of the disciplines
uncertain. Lastly, the lack of opportunities in terms of employment also deters a
serious researcher from undertaking a comprehensive study on any aspect of Area
Studies.
If we agree that there has been a change in the context and that the role of
the state has declined, it becomes imperative that the discipline of Area Studies
needs to define its relationship with other social sciences. The traditional disciplines
too are now struggling to come to terms with the changed context. For instance,
in political science, we see due space being allotted to new macro concepts like
civil society, new social movements, NGOs, etc. As constituted in place for
globalization, the emergence of alternate actors that globalization has brought
forth, for example, the meetings of World Social Forum in Brazil and in India,

10
Das Gupta, No. 7, p. 38.
11
Kanti Bajpai (1997), “International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) Home”, in Rajan M S (Ed.),
International and Area Studies in India, p. 37, Lancers Books, New Delhi.
12
Rana A P (1988), “Reconstructing International Relations as a Field of Study in India: A Programme for the
Disciplinary Development of International Relations Studies”, in Studying International Relations: The
Baroda Perspective, p. 65, March, Baroda.

Area Studies and the Challenge of Globalisation: Issues and Concerns 69

worldwide protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) from Seattle to
Cancun, human rights, environment makes it necessary to redefine themselves.
The relationship between Area Studies and social sciences still remains ambiguous.
For example, while teaching research methodology in international relations, the
process is trying as it ends up being a hot-potch of topics from different social
sciences with a total absence of tools to deal with it. Area Studies remains short
of academic rigor and it is essential to make it genuinely multidisciplinary.

Contemporary Challenges
Knowledge and concepts do not exist in a vacuum. This is true for any concept
for that matter. Concepts do acquire different connotations in the process of their
evolution and, in turn, they condition the possibility of thought and action. In a
way, socio-political concepts are like sponges: they are able to soak up and contain
a variety of meanings as a result of being used in different contexts for different
purposes. It is this sponginess that makes concepts increasingly ambiguous,
and it is the resulting ambiguity that sometimes makes concepts constitutive of
discourse. Rather than starting from a fixed definition of a given concept, conceptual
history attends to what the practices of definition and usage do to a concept, and
what the concept in turn does to the world in which it is inscribed. Phrased
differently, conceptual history attends both to what a concept means within a given
context and to what a concept does to a given context.
It is well-established that conceptual history was ignored and in its place
greater emphasis was laid on institutional history. The birthmarks persisted with
the looming presence of the UGC and the MEA in the area study centers.
Nevertheless, more than the ominous presence of the government, other
challenges have emerged with globalization that threaten these Area Studies
programs. Importantly this list is very long. All such programs are facing a paucity
of resources and funding as government grants towards higher education have
either diminished or dried-up. As there are no foundations like the Ford or the
Rockefeller to support such work, these centres automatically come under the
total control of the funding agencies like UGC, Indian Council for Social Science
Research (ICSSR) and MEA. The need for a new identity is imperative, which does
not subsist on UGC grants, and state governments’ support for survival. It is
clearly seen that most state governments are either unaware of such ongoing
programs, therefore by and large disinterested, making them totally insensitive
to their activities. Moreover, all experts on Area Studies are usually Delhi-based,
making it impossible for those in the other parts of the country to make their
mark. There is also the absence of transnational interaction and networking
among these Area Studies centers to meet the challenges arising out of
globalization.
The difficulties faced by such programs nationwide are not merely that of funding
or other technicalities but the problem is far deeper. Area Studies has been always

70 The Icfai University Journal of International Relations, Vol. II, No. 4, 2008
looked by the traditional disciplines as ‘poachers’ despite being multidisciplinary,
and thus viewed as journalistic. As Rajan says, “Often area study centers are unable
even to initiate a new course. This is partly due to the conservatism of those who
belong to the traditional disciplines”.13

This is not to say that the problem is one sided. Area Studies by themselves are
facing a severe crisis. It is obvious that most of the work done in these centers have
no theoretical basis or framework. Therefore, it is imperative to make these
programs face contemporary challenges as the top priority and reinforce the
theoretical concerns. Moreover, it is well documented that the Area Studies
programs since their inception for almost four decades were mainly concerned with
India’s foreign and bilateral relations. This when contrasted with such successful
ongoing programs in the West shows that the latter stressed more on micro and
macro level issues like development policies, commerce, rich anthropological
literature, tropical medicine, travelogues, diaries, etc. In addition, there is also a
desperate need to re-evaluate the methodologies and course contents of such
programs as well as develop new visions, tools of research and new theories.
In short, there is an urgent need for academic rigor, i.e., a need for an new identity.

There are some difficulties that such programs face as they are situated within
the university systems. It is seen on one hand that within the university systems, most
of such programs are considered as marginal or peripheral in the university curricula,
while on the other the Area Studies programs accuse this system to be time-bound
and inflexible. It is pointless to play the blame game with each other, rather all such
programs as well as the universities have to work together as a team for the success
of not only such programs but the general workings of any university.

Apart from these limitations, a number of other issues of mobility and employment
lead scholars to fall back on traditional disciplines for employment, making it a
necessity to channelize this repository of knowledge in an efficient manner.
For instance, with the wider media coverage on international events, the Area Studies
scholars could be utilized as think tanks and can be used for policy-making and
strategizing. Moreover, the visibility of such programs also had been poor, as by and
large the general public is unaware of or have little interest in societies other than
their own. Practical ways to deal with such limitations could be by organizing extensive
lectures, which could revive the interest in all such programs and can make them
more market-oriented as in case of users and consumers.

Conclusion
Area Studies as an academic enterprise, will have to transcend the barriers that
the persistence of a statist research frameworks impose, if it wants to come to

13
Rajan M S (1997), “Reflections on the Development of Area Studies in India”, in Ankush B Sawant (Ed.),
Area Studies Programmes in Indian Universities: An Appraisal and Review, pp. 1-10, Kalinga Publishers,
Delhi.

Area Studies and the Challenge of Globalisation: Issues and Concerns 71

terms with the phenomena that clearly cross borders. In the context of
globalization, many issues that appear to concern a specific national society
cannot be properly understood without the analysis of their transnational
dimensions. Area Studies have to grapple with the ways in which nation-states
as historical actors of immense significance to all of us, are linked into an incipient
global society. It requires new research approaches, themes and questions.
A major focus should be on identifying and understanding transnational actors.
It is equally important to analyze the effects of such actors at the regional, national
and global levels, and find out how these actors experience and react to the
processes of globalization.
This endeavor also has the potential to open up added opportunities for
dialogue, participation and partnership between the academic practitioners of Area
Studies and the activists in the global arena, thus bridging the hitherto existing
unfortunate gap between academics and activists. In a wider sense, it would mean
a new and collaborative way of producing and sharing knowledge about
globalization. Definitely, it would impart a systematic grasp of the complexities of
globalization to “those critical voices who speak for the poor, the vulnerable,
the dispossessed and the marginalized in the international fora in which global
policies are m ade”.14 Is that such a bad future for the world we live in? 
Acknowledgment: The author would like to thank Manish Thakur for his very useful
comments on this paper.

Reference # 55J-2008-10-05-01

14
Arjun Appadurai, No. 1, p. 16.

72 The Icfai University Journal of International Relations, Vol. II, No. 4, 2008