After the initial semester, the number of lecturers started to grow and it could be stated that the lecturers at AAC had solid academic qualifications rectifying the stereotypical prejudice that being a native English speaker was a sufficient qualification. Two of this small group of lecturers held a PhD., three held a JD., another three had an MA, two had an MBA, and there was one LL.M and one MPhil. These degrees had been earned at top universities, such as University of Oxford, University of London, London School of Economics, Harvard University, University of New York, and Université de Montréal. With a BA degree, the person with the lowest academic degree was the AAC founder.

One striking example of the idealism and philanthropy of the founder of AAC and of some of his associates was the establishment of a branch campus in Uzhhorod 11 in Zakarpatskaya Oblast of Ukraine, which happened almost in parallel with the opening of the college in Prague. The idea originated before the break-up of Czechoslovakia and was inspired by the Czechoslovak First Republic, of which Subcarpathian Russia had at that time been a part. It was an enthusiastic effort to help one of the most backward parts of Ukraine at the time of the collapsing Soviet Union, which ended in disillusionment and exhaustion of its *spiritus agens.*

From a formal perspective, the establishment of AAC Campus in Uzhgorod was based on an agreement between Uzhgorod State University (USU) and Anglo-American College in Prague, signed by Jansen Raichl and USU Rector, Professor V. Y. Slivka on 19 February 1993, just as AAC in Prague was entering into the spring semester of its second academic year.12 It is worth noting that barely a year and some weeks after the fall of the Soviet Union, the management of a public Ukrainian university saw no issue with entering into an agreement on a common venture with a subject that was private, foreign, had the expression "Anglo-American"

11 In this study, we have opted to use the name "Uzhgorod" rather than "Uzhhorod." The former version was mainly used in the 1990s and appears in all the English-language sources this study is based on. Furthermore, we have also decided to use the period-appropriate name "Uzhgorod State University," even though today the institution's official English title is Uzhhorod National University.

12 Agreement between Uzhgorod State University and Anglo-American College in Prague of 19 February 1993. AAU Archive, Folder Uzhgorod.

in its title and whose faculty consisted of Britons, Americans, and former Czechoslovak émigrés. Only a short time before, such an endeavor would have been completely unthinkable.

Anglo-American College in Uzhgorod (AACU) was launched in the summer of 1993. The possibility of studying at AAC had sparked interest; 65 students had enrolled, out of them 33 students in Economics and 28 in Law, but little interest was shown for the Humanities. Therefore, only one program combining Economics and Law was opened. It is worth mentioning that a group research project on current changes in the economy of the Carpathian Region was scheduled.

AAC generously decided that the students from Zakarpatskaya Oblast would study free of charge,13 and two students of Zakarpatskaya Oblast would be awarded scholarships to spend a year at AAC in Prague. It is no wonder that local students found this opportunity highly attractive – and no surprise that it presented another burden for the AAC budget.

A team from Anglo-American College managed to arrange a summer school in Uzhorod, two Ukrainian students were in Prague for a semester,14 and then the initiative died out. Despite its promising beginnings, the first successful summer school and all the effort that had gone into its establishment, AACU never made it to the second semester.

After the end of the Cold War, organizations from Western Europe and the U.S. launched assistance programs for countries formerly part of the Soviet bloc, one of which was a book assistance programs charity. A Washington, D.C. based NGO Printed Heritage Preservation Society founded in late 1980s was active in book charity activities.15 The organization was run by an American, Leonard Leshuk, whom Raichl had met in London. Leshuk acquired and collected 40 tons of books and shipped them to Jansen Raichl in Prague at Anglo-American College.16 The container with books arrived in Prague in March 1993, at a time when Raichl had just signed an agreement on establishment of an AAC campus in Uzhhorod.17 Most of the books later became an AAC library.

13 Students from other former Soviet regions were to pay \$130 per semester.

14 Raichl's note in author's documentation.

15 The only information we could find regarding the Printed Heritage Preservation Society was that it was founded in 1989, was based in Washington, D.C., and that its activities consisted of providing "non-financial services of facilities to other organizations."

16 AAU Archive, Audio/Video Collection, AAC Leonard; an e-mail from Leshuk to the author from April 5, 2021.

17 A letter from Leonard Leshuk from 31 January 1993.

A large portion of the books were intended for Ukraine, though. The responsibility for transporting the books to Ukraine fell to Raichl, who ran into a plethora of problems. AAC became a sort of a distribution point for book deliveries to Ukraine which far exceeded AAC's capacity and capabilities. The "Books for Ukraine" project was later taken over by Deanie Johnson, an American short-term lecturer at AAC and "a do-gooder" in her own words.18

Perhaps the most significant reason Raichl's bold dream project collapsed was the crisis Anglo-American College in Prague found itself in in the fall of 1993.

The fall semester of 1993 was one of the most critical periods in the history of the AAC. The crisis seriously threatened the very existence of Anglo-American College.

The lease of the classrooms at the high school, where AAC had operated for two years, was suddenly terminated. An alternative location was found in an unused computer club at Korunní Street 101, but the problems accumulated. The accommodation of AAC students in the Czech Technological University dormitories was cancelled. Raichl, overwhelmed by the Uzhgorod project, was the target of sharp criticism. The interest in studying at AAC decreased and this situation did not go unnoticed by the press.19 Although Raichl's goodwill and dedication could not be doubted, his managerial inexperience, stress and exhaustion and responsibility for the students and faculty caused that he was reportedly "angry and confrontational."20

Raichl was not able to delegate the tasks, was not able to build an effective and productive administrative team, he held all the management in his hands and "did everything himself," i.e., certification and registration with Czechoslovak authorities, fundraising, recruitment of teachers and students, keeping records, marketing, promotion, secretarial work, his own teaching, which was not manageable. He felt hurt by criticism, particularly concerning facilities, unfulfilled promises of American and another accreditation, non-existent library,21 although students appreciated the quality of lecturers and the variety of the courses.

18 Newspaper *The Stars and Stripes*, 17 March 1994. AAU Archive, Folder Uzhgorod.

19 Mark Ballon, *"*Criticism of School Mounts. AAC under criticism for poor facilities, crowded classrooms and incompetent administration," *Prague Post*, Oct 27–Nov 2, 1993. AAU Archive, Folder Articles.

20 Andersen and Winn, ibid., 8.

21 Ballon, ibid.

The critique challenged the prevailing image of a college characterized by enthusiasm, altruism, self-motivated and cooperative teachers, and students.

In the fall of 1993, it was clear that change would be needed. One of the most visible symptoms of the crisis was the split of AAC and establishment of American International University in Prague (AIUP).

Anthony Hemstad, Raichl's close collaborator from the very beginning in London and the main protagonist of the split and exodus of one half of students and lecturers, claims that the reason for the break-up was the incompatibility of ideas about college management. Raichl identified completely with the school. It was his brainchild. He had founded it, he had invested not only his finances but had made an enormous emotional commitment. His opponents wanted the AAC governed in the same way as independent private British or American colleges are, supervised by a Board of Trustees. The founder of the AAC resisted these changes, he felt that he could not entrust decisions to anyone, but under the shock of this dramatic split, he came to understand that it was inevitable.

The American International University paradoxically did not survive its first semester in spring 1994. The students and teachers then re-joined the Anglo-American College, which in the meantime caught its second wind.

Raichl finally took a decisive step and transformed the Anglo-American College from his own business into an educational foundation, "Anglo-American College in Prague Foundation" which was registered on 1 December 1993.22 It was necessary but difficult for him.

The establishment of the foundation was an important step, although most of the structural changes were done reluctantly and were "only on paper." However, a road was opened for real and effective transformation. AAC operated as a foundation until 2000, when it was transformed into a public benefit corporation.

Another crucial step soon followed. The college rented the villa Flajšnerka with a large adjacent park in Prague-Vysočany to have a campus. This decision was very energizing and unifying, and the response within the AAC community was very positive.

22 Anglo-American College in Prague Foundation was registered by Jansen Raichl on 1 December 1993 under the registration number 87/37/N/93. Some sources of secondary nature state that the application was submitted in December 1993 and that it was approved on January 1, or even in February 1994.

During the summer of 1994, the villa was renovated and adapted for the campus, equipped with used furniture, computers, printers and projectors provided by the U.S. Peace Corps in Germany, and a library of books from the Printed Heritage Preservation Society was established. Even today, former students and lecturers remember with nostalgia the volunteering in all this work and the spirit of solidarity and togetherness.23

From fall 1994 college started not only in a new location, but also underwent significant structural changes. The departments were consolidated into the Department of Humanities, Department of Business & Economics, and Department of Law. The Board of Trustees, originally consisting of Raichl and his two closest associates, was enlarged in the meantime and a process to remove Raichl and his two friends from executive positions at AAU started. A position of Administrative Director was established and given high powers. Stephan Schackwitz, a very young American who at that time was serving an internship in the Foreign Department of the Office of the President Václav Havel, was appointed to this top administrative position. His start was successful as he negotiated the return of students and most of the lecturers from the American International University in Prague.

The new campus Flajšnerka was a promising start to the transformation of a "cowboy institution" and "hodgepodge of academics who were mostly unexperienced in everything"24 into a consolidated school.

However, very soon after Schackwitz assumed his position, a movement to remove him from his post and from the college started. Raichl adopted an openly hostile attitude toward Schackwitz as he considered him to be the main cause of his loss of power. The department chairs also united against Schackwitz (but they, or some of them, fought against Raichl as well), blaming him for his managerial style. This "second generation" of department chairs at AAC, all young Americans in their first academic jobs, understood their stay in Prague as a temporary

23 Milada Polišenská, *Anglo-American College 1990/91-2000/01: Against All Odds* (Prague: Anglo-American University, 2022). The quoted recollections of Richard Jones are in the author's documentation.

24 This is how allegedly Stephen Grant, lecturer and later Chair of Humanities and John Carey II, a lecturer and later Chair of School of Legal Studies, saw AAC at that time. Andersen, Winn. "Anglo-American College in Prague. Positioning for Growth" (C*). International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation,* November 2004, 276–284, p. 3, only in the copy in the AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1994–1995. This section was not published in the printed version.

experience and then left to pursue either PhD studies or other careers. They can be credited with stabilizing the departments, though.

The criticism targeted particularly Schackwitz's managerial style. Reportedly, he had a secretive behavior, did not share the information or communicate with other members of the AAC management and students.25 Schackwitz acknowledges today that his management style was amateurish.26 But he was young (23 years old), had just got his Bachelor's degree, this was his first real job, in a foreign country, in Czechoslovakia which had just disintegrated, at a college which did not have any institutional stability, memory and experience, and which was struggling with growing pains. He was given a huge responsibility, he took it with idealism, enthusiasm, goodwill and ambition. He just started to learn the real working environment. His critics were, however, in the same situation. Also young, had just arrived in a foreign country, appointed to responsible academic positions of Chairs of Departments/Schools of Study without previous academic experience other than being a student of master's or unfinished doctoral programs.

Schackwitz also failed to establish a reliable and accurate financial administration.27 Even if no documents survived, there are testimonies that the administration of school finances was improvised and not qualified. The Board of Trustees was probably not aware of the situation. On one hand, youth, lack of qualification and experience may explain the cause of problems but cannot excuse it. On the other hand, why did the Board entrust such financial and administrative power to a young person whose goodwill, demonstrated skills, but also limited education and deficiencies they knew?

It is clearly documented, however, that in 1994–1996 the college was developing successfully, and without the invention and personal attention of the Administrative Director this promising development would not have been possible.

To the positive achievements of the first two years on Flajšnerka campus belong the Center of Corporate Development and appointment of Bob Chames as its head and Fundraising Director. The college received generous grants and donations from prominent institutions such as

25 Andersen and Winn, "Anglo-American College in Prague. Conflict and Turnaround in a Nonprofit Enterprise (B)." *Case Research Journal* 22, no. 1 (2002): chapter on AAC's Student involvement. This chapter was not published in the printed version.

26 The quoted recollections of Schackwitz are in the author's documentation.

27 Andersen and Winn, ibid., repeatedly in the cited articles.

Citibank,28 Colgate-Palmolive, Coca-Cola, ABN-Amro Bank, Erste Bank, Gyrocredit Bank, Price Waterhouse, McDonalds, Arthur Anderson, Access and Synergie.29 Since the 1990s, such significant sponsorship has not happened. The college had positive publicity, particularly in *Prague Post*, but also in Czech periodicals, such as *Ekonom*. 30 AAC was promoted at high schools in the Czech Republic and at educational fairs in the country and abroad. The unique international character of the college was emphasized by listing students from more than dozens of countries and media headlines such as "Professors from leading American and British universities teach at AAC."31 However, this was most misleading, because the lecturers at AAC graduated from the leading universities, i.e., "they were from them," but it did not mean that the professors of these universities would come to teach at AAC. Bombastic self-presentation, exaggeration of own qualities and formulation on the verge of reality were a negative manifestation of the efforts of private schools to assert themselves and succeed in the higher education market economy in the first years of their existence. It was one of the justified sources of distrust and doubt about the private higher education sector which impacted the Czech academic environment.

An agreement on mutual recognition of credits was concluded between the Institute of Fundamental Learning of Charles University and AAC, and based on this, AAC students took courses at the most prestigious Czech university. However, Anglo-American College advertised this as having a consortium agreement with Charles University. Contacts with Czech Management Center, U.S. Business School, and other academic institutions were published to document extensive academic cooperation.

In response to the growth of the college and to achieve more balanced structure of the top management, a position of Academic Director was established and placed on an equal level with the Administrative Director. To this position was appointed Richard Jones, an experienced academic from the renowned Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael. He was husband of a Dutch diplomat assigned to the

28 Interview with Bob Chames, *Central European Business Weekly*, 12–18, 1996. AAU Archive, binder MKT 91–99.

29 Andersen and Winn, ibid.*, B*, 60, and many promotional and information materials of AAC in the AAU Archive.

30 *Hospodářské noviny*, 16 August 1995. AAU Archive, Folder Articles.

31 AAU Archive, binder MKT 91–99.

Embassy of Netherlands in Prague and joined AAC first as Chair of the School of Humanities.32 His academic and personal maturity became a stabilizing factor of the college, and during his work at AAC, first as a Chair of Humanities, then Academic Director and finally as head of the college, Jones moved the school to a higher level in all respects.

The Executive Committee was formed in fall 1995 consisting of Academic Director, Administrative Director and Chairs. It assumed control of the day-to-day operations of the college, becoming by 2005 the supreme executive body of AAC. The Registrar's Office was established in response to the rapid growth of the enrolment of students. Starting with the academic year 1995/1996, the Departments were transformed into Schools of Study headed by Chairs and assisted by the Coordinators. The original British character of the school began to be 'Americanized' and American terminology used.

The Board of Trustees meeting on 27 January 1995 amended the AAC Statute, which had been under discussion for several months.33 The Board of Trustees would now include external members, representatives of major companies, with rights to vote. Members of AAC administration were to resign from the Board and in the future would be only *ex officio* members. The AAC budget was approved, which was something new as well.34 The requalification authorization of the Anglo-American College was extended for another period of three years by the Ministry of Education in February 1995. This secured AAC's status till 1998. Progress was made at this meeting, but it was by all indications tense and emotionally demanding, as the Board of Trustees sought roles for Raichl and his two closest associates who were members of the first Board of Trustees within the new structure of the AAC. Eventually, a Founders' Board of which they would be permanent members was to be established.

The founder of AAC endured the changes with difficulty, submitted critical memoranda,35 and addressed students with open letters criticizing the new management of AAC. He felt marginalized and underappreciated.

The number of AAC students had started to grow admirably. In spring 1994, there were 60 students, one semester later the recorded number

32 Repeatedly in various documents. AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1994-1995. Also see Andersen and Winn, ibid., *B,* 62.

33 AAU Archive, Folder AAC/BoT, 1994–1995.

34 Andersen and Winn, ibid., B, 60, 61.

35 AAU Archive, Folder AAC/BoT, 1994–1995.

ranged between 80 and 100.36 The TOEFL exam was required now from non-native English students, tuition was set at 24,500 crowns per year for students from the Czech Republic, and 50,000 crowns for foreigners.

The next academic year 1995/1996 started with an American-style orientation. A Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program was established.

The list of courses offered was unrealistically long as it included everything that AAC lecturers could possibly teach, particularly as electives. This maximalist approach was probably due to the effort to show the potential of the school in the best possible light. Eventually Academic Director Richard Jones, who was a significant personality in the history of AAC, consolidated the course offer to avoid the main focus of study programs being diluted.

In spring 1995, a team of four students in Legal Studies represented AAC at the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition in the United States. Their travel and stay was sponsored by a major law firm. In spring 1996 a large international conference, the World Wide Web Conference, sponsored by Radio Free Europe/Radio, took place at AAC. Organizations within the school began to take shape: Faculty meetings were held, the Student Council was established, the students launched The Best Teacher Award, a student newspaper was published, a new AAC logo was designed, volleyball and softball tournaments took place at AAC campus and much more.

On 10 June 1995, the first graduation took place in the beautiful Chapel of Mirrors in Klementinum. How to explain that the students were willing to pay expensive tuition for several years of demanding studies and for just a certificate of requalification courses? AAC students were aware that AAC was not accredited as a college. They expected that they would succeed in their professional careers or further university studies, and despite the lack of university accreditation, AAC graduates generally found good employment, which was a source of positive response and publicity. Still, there was growing impatience and criticism of the AAC leadership for not securing the accreditation, at least a foreign one, as already promised already in 1992.

In the mid-1990s, the higher education landscape in Czechia and Europe was changing. Internationalization was advancing, public universities started offering accredited programs taught in English with low

36 AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1994–1995.

tuition fees, which became serious competition for AAC. Branches of foreign, mostly American, and British universities, started operating in the Czech Republic. There was increasing pressure to legalize the private higher educational sector in the Czech Republic. Accreditations by various foreign accreditation agencies were sought by private schools. Because they were often accompanied by cheap and bombastic promotion, they did not have the best reputation in academic circles, and the prevailing view was that these accreditations could simply be bought for money. AAC at least applied for accreditation from the ECBE (European Council for Business Education) in Geneva, Switzerland for its Business Administration program of study.37 However, the ECBE accreditation was demanding, solid and credible. For AAC, it was an important institutional experience, and the accreditation process had a positive impact on the quality of administration and education at AAC. Candidacy of ECBE accreditation was granted to AAC in May 1997, and the accreditation was awarded in 2000.

Jones's primary task as the head of AAC was a revision of the original AAC Foundation Statute written by Raichl in November-December 1993 and amended by the Board of Trustees on 27 January 1995. He worked on this with Petr Frischmann from Law Faculty of Charles University who became Chair of the School of Law at AAC. The mission of AAC was formulated as follows:

The objective of the AAC Foundation is to provide western style affordable university level education and other educational services to the community and to support scientific and research work of all kinds, including the publishing of specialized and instructional texts and to support other student activities within the framework of culture and sports.

Jones elaborated the AAC structure in more detail, some bodies were newly established and some were supposed to be established in the future. The new organization included Honorary Council, Founders' Board, Board of Trustees, College President, Director of Administrative Affairs, Director of Academic Affairs, Senate. There were the non-statutory bodies: Academic Council, School Chairs, Director of Library, School Coordinators and others.

37 See European Council for Business Education, https://www.ecbe.eu/.

The Executive Committee became a key body of the college. It consisted of its Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, Director of Administration and Chairs of the Schools. The Chairman of the Executive Committee was also Chairman of the Academic Council and of the Senate and was appointed by the Board of Trustees.

Jones paid great attention to financial and administrative matters and hired qualified staff to the respective positions. AAC organized a career Forum and a roundtable discussion "Cross-Cultural issues and challenges in the Czech Business Environment Negotiation" held in February 1997 in the luxury Renaissance Hotel, which is today the Hilton, and had frequent and positive publicity in the press, particularly in the *Prague Post.*

The International Institute of Christian Studies in Kansas, USA, approached AAC in May 1997 and expressed an interest in developing a partnership and establishing a department at AAC.

Jones's answer was diplomatic, reserved and cautious. He wrote that "I had nothing *per se* against a Christian college, but I did feel that that was not what the AAC was, or should be,"38 and he stated that "we must remain liberal in our attitudes and methods."39

AAC in the early years suffered from continuous personnel changes and a lack of permanent faculty and academic administrators. This was not just an "AAC case." The instability of academic staff, "flying professors" or "turbo-professors" was a typical feature of academic life in Czechia in the 1990s and even after. The reasons were mostly low salaries at public universities, which forced the academics to take multiple teaching jobs and search for new opportunities. The long-term instability applied particularly to Anglo-American College because of its international character, as it was a temporary haven for many young foreigners coming to Prague and looking for a temporary job in (higher) education.

In the academic year 1997/1998, AAC offered 80 courses, of which 41 were in the School of Business & Economics, 26 in Humanities, and 13 in Legal Studies. Classes had about 20 students, but about a dozen had fewer than 10 students. Tuition was 21,000 crowns per semester for five courses, which was then \$600, the students paid on average 4,795 crowns per course (\$145).40 A summer school had been running for three years, since 1995. A winter semester was established in 1998. Thus, the AAC

38 Jones' e-mail to the author from January 27, 2021.

39 AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1996–1998.

40 Andersen and Winn, ibid., C, 282.

academic calendar had become complete, with two so-called long and two short semesters, all having the full number of teaching hours.

The faculty consisted of 50 lecturers, all of them adjuncts, and 20 people worked in administration. About one third of teachers were Americans, one third Czechs, and one third were reportedly of 15 nationalities,41 which means that almost every person of this group was of a different nationality. One third of teachers were women, and two thirds of administration were women.

Graduation ceremonies became grand and more elaborate each year with honorary guests in attendance, and in 1998 the U.S. Ambassador Jennone R. Walker attended the graduation ceremony, which took place in the beautiful large hall of the National House of Vinohrady. In 1995, the first 20 students graduated; in 1996, 26 graduated; in 1997, there were 45 graduates, which made a total number of 90 AAC graduates. 42

On the Board of Trustees, the participation of representatives of major international companies based in Prague continued (TV Nova, Citibank, S. C. Johnson, Sovesco and others).43 AAC hosted international scholars and noted personalities, such as guest speakers George Schöpflin44 and Martin Stránský.45 Student activities developed, including participation at the Mixed University Basketball Tournament in Rotterdam, and several clubs were established.

On 1 January 1998, Act No. 227/1997 Coll., concerning foundations and endowment funds came into effect, based on which the college was to be transformed into a public benefit corporation within a year. Jones who was about to depart from Prague as the diplomatic assignment of his wife ended, made basic preparatory steps for the transformation, but his successor at the head of the institution had to complete it.

Even though under Richard Jones the school was stabilized financially and administratively, its structure was consolidated, and the atmosphere at the college was significantly improved, the consolidation of the college was not yet strong enough to avert the serious shocks and

41 Ibid.

42 AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1996–1998.

43 Ibid.

44 György (George) Schöpflin (1939–), professor of London School of Economics and School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London, politician in Hungary, member of Fidesz, former member of European Parliament.

45 Martin Jan Stránský (1956–), politician, neurologist, writer, publisher of *Přítomnost* and *The New Presence.* His ancestors were the founder of *Lidové noviny* and politician for Austria-Hungary and the First Republic, Adolf Stránský, and a politician and journalist, an important member of the Czechoslovak exile community during WW II and after 1948 Jaroslav Stránský.

conflicts of the period after Jones's departure. Within a few months, the newly stabilized and prosperous college again found itself on the verge of destruction.

After a quick search, Dr. Roger Cole (1935–2019) was hired to assume the position of the head of AAC from the beginning of the new academic year, 1998/1999. Cole was a linguist, retired professor from University of South Florida in Tampa and he knew Prague, as in 1996 he had been a Fulbright Scholar at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University.

He had impressive "grand plans" of which none were achieved, with two exceptions, which have ultimately proved their sustainability. He arranged for the attendance of students from University of South Florida at a summer school in 1999, which established a tradition of student mobility for many years to come. The benefit of Cole's period was the signing of a lease with the Knights of Malta to rent space in their palace, although the relocation of the college from Vysočany took place under Cole's successors. This anchored Anglo-American College in one of the most beautiful corners of historic Prague – Lesser Town.

Cole had enthusiasm, drive, and energy46 and was demanding. None of the previous heads of college had used the title of president. Cole requested this title and got it. Some conditions Cole dictated went beyond the capabilities of the AAC.47 During Cole's presidency, several notable changes in the administrative staff were made, and the arrival of several well qualified lecturers was beneficial for AAC. The Office of Student Services, a Language Center and Intensive Academic English Program were founded. Rosemary Taugher, an American tax advisor and human resources expert, was hired by Cole to conduct a thorough "human resources audit," and based on its results Cole appointed her Chief Financial Officer. Her audit, however, subjected all processes, all activities and all sections of the college to an inspection.

The change in the position of head of the college took place at a time when two fundamental issues concerning the functioning of the college had to be addressed. The transformation of the foundation into a public benefit corporation company was very urgent, as it had a deadline set by Act No. 227/1997 Coll. on foundations and endowment funds for the end of the year 1998. Coincidentally, the AAC's authorization to provide requalification education also ended on 31 December 1998.

46 Andersen and Winn, ibid., C, in various paragraphs of the case study.

47 "Confirmation and conditions of my continued tenure." AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1996–1998. Data quoted in Andersen and Winn, ibid., C, 283, are different.

Moreover, at the end of Richard Jones's office, the Higher Education Act No.111/1998 Coll. was adopted (effective from 1 July 1998). This was the Act that private higher education institutions had been waiting for as it contained provisions for the accreditation of private colleges. Anglo-American College had hoped for almost nine years to be recognized as a higher education institution, and now the path to it was open.

The Anglo-American College, which had been in existence for eight years and had the ambition to apply for accreditation as soon as possible, was not prepared for this step. President Cole found it difficult to orient himself in the Czech university and administrative environment and did not trust the Board of Trustees and those in the college government and administration who were in their positions from the time of his predecessor.

He was unable to manage the situation, and when he received specific questions from students at the meetings, he gave evasive or even misleading answers, for example about accreditation, and it was clear that he was not familiar with the situation and with the huge workload that a first accreditation of a higher education institution entails.48

The situation became difficult and the atmosphere at the AAC very tense after the file on transformation of the AAC foundation into a public benefit corporation49 which had been submitted under the previous management was declined by the court, as was notified to Cole on 1 April 1999. Subsequently, Cole launched a dramatic search for those responsible, accused the Board of Trustees of "illegitimate actions," that the AAC, o.p.s. had been established illegally and in "violation of the AAC Foundation's Statute," and tried to remove the Board of Trustees from power and to nominate a new Board.50 Cole's reports brim with terms like "crisis," "emergency," "disaster"; he spoke of "extraordinary measures which the college has been forced to undertake to preserve its integrity and even its existence in this emergency" and claimed that "the non-Czech members of the Board of Trustees did not know why and what they were signing." 51

However, there were people on the Board of Trustees at that time who had been involved with AAC for several years, who were well acquainted

48 Cole, The State of the College for the upcoming meeting. An address prepared for the AAC Community 19 March 1999. AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1999–2000.

49 In this paper, the Czech acronym for public benefit corporation, o.p.s., will be used.

50 Report on the actions taken by the AAC Executive Committee to insure continuance of the college, April 15, 1999. AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1999–2000.

51 Cole, Report on the actions taken by the AAC Executive Committee to insure continuance of the college, April 15 1999. AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1999–2000.

with the not-for-profit sector in the Czech Republic, and who closely monitored legislative development in this area. There was even a lawyer specializing in NGOs and a former rector of one of the major Czech public universities. The transformation of the AAC foundation into an o.p.s. was in the hands of qualified and involved people.52

At Anglo-American College, the situation was discussed again and again at a number of meetings, and the deadline for an appeal was approaching. The current Board of Trustees did not wait any longer and appealed the decision of the court on 15 April. On April 20, 1999, Cole abruptly and prematurely resigned from his position and left the Anglo-American College on April 30. After him, Taugher was appointed Interim President. She was highly efficient but she had little experience in academia; in her conclusions, everyone in the higher management was unqualified and incompetent and the college needed a thorough change.53 Her disciplinary enforcement approach did not help build a collegial and cooperative atmosphere. Taugher resigned and left the college in July 1999.

Cole and Taugher were examples of how some foreign, especially American, executives and managers did not succeed when trying to implant a system they knew into local conditions, as they failed to learn and understand, and were not open to collaboration. This study evidences that at AAC, the synergy of both influences proved to be beneficial and yielded good results in many ways, but Cole and Taugher are an example of the opposite.

Despite all the crises at the level of government and management of AAC that have just been described, the college as an educational institution functioned well. This was mainly due to the effective functioning of the Schools of Study. The college had an admirable growth of students (almost 400 in 1998/1999). Study programs prospered, and the School of Legal Studies in particular was proud to participate in organizing Legal Continuing Courses for the John Marshall School of Law from Chicago in the Bar Association.

Richard Lester Smith was, from November 1999, the next President. He had joined AAC in fall 1995 as a missional professor from the International Institute of Christian Studies (IICS) in Overland, Kansas.54

52 These members were Ladislav Venyš, Petr Pajas, Lenka Deverová and Štěpán Müller.

53 Taugher, Report and compiled documents, July 31 1999. AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1999–2000/ Taugher.

54 "Institutional Partnerships," Global Scholars, https://global-scholars.org/who-we-are/ministry -partners/.

The original plan to establish a Department of Christian Studies at AAC as an autonomous unit with a strong financial background from IICS had failed because of the reserved stance of the AAC head Jones. Smith then had founded a church-oriented Comenius Institute in Prague55 and signed with Jones's successor Cole a cooperation agreement between the two institutions on the establishment of Christian Studies at AAC.

Even though AAC stayed a non-religious institution, Smith's protestant background was visible in his frequent quotations of Jan Hus, in transferring the graduation ceremonies to the Betlehem Chapel, and in bringing several lecturers supported financially by the International Institute of Christian Studies. Smith was a skilled speaker and manager. In an dramatic opening statement of his presidency56 he characterized the corporate culture at AAC entirely negatively, as being:

Hostile working environment, climate of distrust, disrespect and fear, gossip, slander, blame shifting, complaining, dishonesty, misrepresentation, secrecy, lack of a chain command, little decentralization of responsibility and decision-making, weak accountability, and policy enforcement.

This was, by his words, the state of the college when he took it into care. The message then was that under a new leadership the situation would change for the better.

Smith designed two priorities: o.p.s. registration and accreditation as a higher education institution. Richard Smith addressed the issue with energy and determination. However, a precondition was registration as an o.p.s. Unbelievably, Anglo-American College operated as a foundation until mid-2000, thanks to the helping hand of the Ministry of Education, which allowed the college to operate based on the old trade license of the founder of AAC. The college submitted a new application for registration as an o.p.s., this time under the name Anglo-American Institute of Liberal Studies. The reason for the new name, which was not fully accepted within the AAC community even though there was no opposition to it, was that the appeal against the rejection of AAC, o.p.s., had still not been responded to. The registration as an o.p.s. went through successfully in summer 2000. This made it possible to apply for higher education accreditation.

55 On Comenius Institute, see Komenského institut, http://www.komenskyinstitute.com/.

56 Richard Smith, Report to the BoT, November 29, 1999. AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1999–2000.

It was a demanding and difficult work, in which cooperation between Czech and American administrators resulted in a positive result. The contribution of doc. Štěpán Müller, now Chairman of the Board of Trustees, an experienced academic and former rector of University of Economics and Dean of the Czech Management Centre in Čelákovice, was invaluable.

The new Statute and a set of internal regulations including Academic Code, Admission Code, Examination Code, Scholarship Code and others were drafted and the curricula of programs of study reviewed. In 1999/2000, the tuition was set at 33,000 crowns for Czechs and Slovaks and 47,000 crowns for foreign students. AAC provided Need-Based and Merit-Based scholarships, and the college was successful in gaining sponsors to support students; for example, that year Erste Bank granted \$500,000 in scholarships.57

Richard Smith planned to build contacts and cooperation in the United States. The outcome of his efforts was an agreement with Central Michigan University (CMU) in Mt. Pleasant, USA, signed on 15 June 2000. The so called "3+1 program" was successful, and in the following years some AAC students benefited from the opportunity to live and study in the United States and earn a bachelor's degree from an American university in addition to an AAC diploma.58 Other plans did not materialize: AAC hoped in vain to get finances, and the hopes of CMU to transform the AAC into its base abroad failed as the AAC administrators were afraid of losing their independence.59 As for international cooperation, AAC (AAILS respectively) reported at that time partnership with University of South Florida, Central Michigan University and Covenant College, which was another Protestant College in the United States which had become involved with the AAC. Substantial expansion of international cooperation came with the first Erasmus agreements, which was possible only after the accreditation.

The accreditation dossier was submitted twice. The first application required immense and demanding work which AAC had never before undertaken. The Ministry of Education officials were supportive and provided useful advice. It was well known that AAC operated as a college and not as a provider of post-secondary requalification courses, and therefore the wording and terminology had to be chosen carefully. In the accreditation dossier, on the advice of the Ministry of Education, instead

57 Course Catalog 1999/2000, AAU Archive, Handbooks, Catalogs and Prints Collection.

58 AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1999–2000/2001.

59 The quoted recollections of Richard Jones and Petr J. Pajas are in the author's documentation.

of college "an educational institution using teaching and learning methods like a tertiary education institution" was used.

The first application was withdrawn after reconsideration in May 2000, and another six months of work on it followed. The main reason was that it was submitted prior to registration as an o.p.s. Most importantly, the intention to accredit the Legal Studies program was dropped. This was a painful decision as Legal Studies had been the AAC's priority program, always cited to confirm the college's qualities. On 31 January 2001, the application for accreditation was submitted for the second time.

On 20 March 2001, President Smith resigned from his position for private reasons. Mitchell Young, who was Vice President for Academic Affairs, was appointed Acting President effective immediately.

The decisive meeting of the Accreditation Commission was held on 24 April 2001 and the result was successful. The proposed programs and fields of study Economics and Management and Humanity Studies with a field of Applied Social Sciences were recommended by the Accreditation Commission to the Ministry of Education for accreditation. State approval for the AAILS, o.p.s. to operate as a private higher education institution was granted. The official Resolution of the Ministry of Education was issued on 29 June 2001.60

To conclude, Anglo-American College was the first private educational institution at a bachelor's level that was established in our country, but its status as a college was not legally recognized due to the absence of a corresponding law on accreditation. The state approval of the college and accreditation of the first two bachelor's programs took place in 2001. This study therefore examined the first ten to eleven "non-accredited" years of the AAC's existence.

During this period of time, particularly in the beginning, there was a noticeable idealism and philanthropy. Idealism surfaced in the first formulation of mission and vision, and philanthropy proved itself in a number of real life situations and decisions.

At the same time, the college established itself as an actor of the market economy. The paper attempted to shed light on idealism and capitalism in the functioning of the AAC using a number of specific examples.

There were conflicts in the management: excellent performance and often enthusiastic solutions clashed with poor management and lack of foresight. The promotion of the school and marketing was negatively

60 AAU Archive, Folder AAC/1999–2000/2001.

affected by the ignorance of the academic context, inexperience and the effort to enter the market aggressively.

There was a power struggle in AAC management for most of the examined period. Not only various managerial concepts clashed, but personal ambitions, disappointment and loss of idealism also intertwined. Manifestations of both idealism and capitalism on the strongest side of the scale had their effects on the functioning of the school, as did interpersonal relationships, the working climate, and perception of the school in academia.

The best promotion of the school was quality teaching, and it must be acknowledged that the young teachers who worked at AAC really tried to do so. Although there were sharp conflicts in management, teaching and other activities went well, and particularly academic and administrative management at the middle level, especially the Chairs of the Schools, seemed to have the great credit for keeping the school going.

The accreditation process was not easy for the AAC, and various symptoms surfaced, such as a distrust of foreign AAC administrators towards the Czech administrative environment, underestimation of the complexity of the accreditation process, and language difficulties. At the same time, the accreditation process increased the quality of AAC, bridged the distrust and brought an important institutional experience to the AAC.

The author suggests a correction to the stereotypical prejudice about the Ministry of Education's reluctance towards the private higher education sector, as the research confirmed that the Ministry of Education supported and assisted the AAC in a number of critical situations with qualified and constructive advice and concrete help without which the school would not have survived its crises.

Both idealism and capitalism were present in the history of AAC, which went through its formative years against the backdrop of the so-called Wild Nineties and emergence of "academic capitalism."

AAC had its distinctive ethos, mission and vision of bringing the Western type of education in English to Central Europe. Its core appeared already when the college was founded. Over time, this mission proved its vitality, and is recognized to this day for more than thirty years. One must ask to what extent it is a symptom of stability and continuity, or an obstacle to adaptation of the institution to changing conditions in academia and in society. How much does apply here the statement of T. G. Masaryk that the states (in this case the school) are sustained by the ideas from which they arose.

### **Sinology and Area Studies: Recent (Con)fusions**

Olga Lomová

This chapter presents Sinology, a field of study and research from the broader family of what is still called in Eastern Europe "Oriental studies," in a historical perspective and in the specific context of Charles University. Part of this overview is an introduction of the concept of area studies and its transformations, including some past debates about their value compared to "more scientific" social sciences. By doing this I address the diversity of local disciplinary traditions, and eventually point to the (in)compatibility of different classifications and institutional frameworks, and the pitfalls of transfer between them when it comes to administrative decisions regarding research management.

The chapter traces the transformation of the epistemic basis of Czechoslovak Sinology in the second half of the twentieth century and takes note of tendencies analogous to area studies, a specific product of postwar US academic reforms, including the reorientation toward new topics and multidisciplinary conceptions of Sinology. Past discussions clarifying the position of area studies between the humanities and social sciences are presented as well. It turns out that a similar transformation of teaching and researching about China (and other non-Western cultures) under the conditions of the Cold War took place on both sides of the Iron Curtain, but within different institutional frameworks and under different names. Whereas in the US, and later in some European countries as well, the study of modern Chinese society and culture split from classical Sinology and was newly institutionalized as Chinese studies, in Czechoslovakia a similarly oriented research and teaching focus remained within the framework of the original "Oriental studies" and was referred to as Sinology. A by-product of this approach in socialist Czechoslovakia was innovative transdisciplinary research and also the expansion of the meaning of the word *Sinology* in the Czech language, which now commonly refers to knowledge and learning about any aspect of China's past or present. Thus, despite the East–West division of the world during the Cold War, a de facto convergence took place between area studies in "the West" and Oriental studies in "the East," different institutional settings and different names notwithstanding. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, these analogous developments facilitated the integration of Czech Oriental studies, including Sinology, into the international academic community. Contrary to this evolution, "area studies" have been recently introduced at Charles University as a new discipline, or rather as a subdiscipline of political science. This innovation using an imported, but reinterpreted, concept distances Czech academia from international trends and unwittingly creates barriers where they did not exist before.

### **Sinology**

The beginning of Sinology as an independent discipline in Europe dates to 1814, when a chair of "Chinese and Tatar-Manchu language and literature" was established at the Collège de France in Paris. As the name suggests, Sinology was supposed to be the "science of China" and as such has from the beginning sought a comprehensive understanding of Chinese culture. In the spirit of nineteenth-century European humanities (the social sciences did not yet exist), this meant learning about the spiritual world of ancient China and its roots in the sacred canonical books, and on this basis understanding the essence of a distant civilization in the sense of "knowing the spirit of a nation."1 Learning about China became an independent discipline at a time of growing European encounters with the Far East. The decision to teach Manchu along with the Chinese language was conditioned by the situation in China, ruled by the Manchu dynasty, where Manchu was, alongside Chinese, the official language until 1911.

Sinology developed alongside other "Oriental studies," that is, philological disciplines focusing on the languages and literatures of the Near

1 "Filologie," in *Ottův slovník naučný*, Vol. 9 (Praha: J. Otto, 1895), 221. The author of the encyclopedia entry was Orientalist Rudolf Dvořák.

East and India. Academic Sinology took shape in the nineteenth century in a way analogous to classical philology, its basis being knowledge of a dead language (classical Chinese) and the sacred texts written in it. In dialogue with nineteenth-century classical philology, and in part with biblical exegesis, Sinology developed methods of textual criticism, philological analysis, and procedures for translating. Toward the end of the century, Sinology embraced positivist historiography as well. The paradigmatic output of classical Sinology is a translation of a canonical book, supplemented with extensive prolegomena and detailed annotations touching on various linguistic and cultural-historical aspects of the work, including laboriously reconstructed details of material culture, historical geography, and so forth. The preparation of such a translation was necessarily a multidisciplinary endeavor as it required, in addition to knowledge of the source language, a broad familiarity with other fields as well. In this sense, classical Sinology was open to other disciplines since its inception.

Ancient (and, after the discovery of the Dunhuang manuscripts, medieval) texts remained the main focus of Sinology in the first half of the twentieth century, but the field naturally evolved toward greater thematic and methodological diversity and deepened its multidisciplinary character. Historiography, in particular, was richly developed, encompassing the newly emerging archaeology of China; the foundations of Chinese art history were laid; and important works in the fields of religious studies and Buddhology were produced. Marcel Granet, the most important Sinologist of his time, whose teacher was also Émile Durkheim, linked the study of ancient texts with the general theory of the sociology of religion. In the first half of the twentieth century, the first European studies documenting contemporary China also appeared, but in general, modern themes remained rare.2

Until the end of World War II, Sinology was a small, exclusive field, concerned with the ancient past and cultivated in a few select schools on the fringes of other humanities. As late as 1958, a group of Chinese intellectuals criticized (as we shall see, not entirely fairly in view of the development of area studies in the US) the indifference of Western Sinologists to the Chinese present. In Hong Kong, where these critical scholars had gone into exile after the Communist victory in China, they published a manifesto in defense of Chinese culture. In it, they mention

2 Herbert Franke, *Orientalistik*, Vol. 1, Sinologie (Bern: A. Francke, 1953).

with some disdain that Sinologists, "driven by curiosity," study Chinese culture, both spiritual and material, with the same interest that others study the dead civilizations of ancient Egypt and the ancient Near East, while ignoring living China.3

### **Chinese Studies**

World War II demonstrated with all its urgency the global interconnectedness and the need for a deeper understanding of the world. It was no longer possible to ignore contemporary China, one of the Allies, a permanent member of the newly established United Nations Security Council and, since 1949, a major Communist power alongside the USSR. The "science of China" accordingly began to transform in terms of subject matter and research methods. These changes occurred most rapidly in the US and were linked to a broader project, a new category of academic disciplines: area studies. Area studies, a concept which eventually spread to parts of Europe as well, were conceived and institutionalized in the US as a specific mode of inquiry open to transdisciplinary approaches and were driven in their methods by the awareness of the linguistic and cultural specificity of different, predominantly non-Western areas of the world.

It was in this spirit that the discipline of Chinese studies was established in the US. Compared to the older Sinology, Chinese studies turned away from the preoccupation with ancient civilization and focused on China's recent past and present. One of the central themes of the new Chinese studies became China's encounters with the West in the nineteenth century and issues related to the process of modernization.4

The emergence of area studies is usually understood as a product of US geopolitical ambitions during the Cold War (as part of "knowing

3 Mou Tsung-san, Hsü Fu-kuan and T'ang Chün-I, "*Wei Zhongguo wenhua jinggao shijie renshi xuanyan* (Hong Kong, 1958), https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/. For a shortened English translation, see "Manifesto for a Reappraisal of Sinology and the Reconstruction of Chinese Culture," in *Sources of Chinese Tradition*, Vol. 2, ed. William Theodore De Bary and Richard Lufrano (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 499–505.

4 On the role of modernization theory in the creation of area studies in general, see "What Is Area Studies," in *Seeing the World: How U.S. Universities Make Knowledge in a Global Era*, eds. +L. Stevens Mitchell, Cynthia Miller-Idriss & Seeteny Shami (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018), 27–38.

your enemy").5 What is rarely discussed is that this thematic and methodological turn also resulted from the internal evolution of the discipline of Sinology, the development of the humanities in general, and the agency of scholars themselves. The new orientation of research about China, as institutionally framed in the new concept of Chinese studies, can therefore also be seen as part of an intrinsic academic process within Sinology. As mentioned, interdisciplinary research framed by general theory already appeared in Marcel Granet's work before World War II, and interest in contemporary China had been slowly growing since the 1930s as a result of more frequent contacts between Western scholars and their Chinese counterparts. At that time, some American scholars – like John King Fairbank, later an important figure in postwar Chinese Studies – conscious of the limits of classical Sinology mired in the ancient past, promoted the idea of teaching modern Asian history at US universities.6 Similarly, Jaroslav Průšek, a leading figure in postwar Czechoslovak Sinology, had already published on literary and cultural modernization in contemporary China during World War II and would probably have pursued these topics regardless of postwar politically driven demands.7

The concept of area studies discussed in the US since the 1940s was based on the notion of geographical areas as units characterized by "highly individualized social and historical configurations in which a variety of facts and events are interrelated in complex and specific ways."8 This means that research into the various aspects of the society and culture of a given area must be approached with an awareness that they are mutually contingent and cannot be fully understood if examined individually

5 There are many overviews of this history. For a recent European perspective in the context of other social sciences and humanities, see Stefi Marung & Katja Naumann, "Oriental Studies in the United States," in *The Making of the Humanities,* Vol. III (*The Modern Humanities*), eds. Rens Bod, Jaap Maat & Thijs Weststeijn, (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2014), 421–425. See also Immanuel Wallerstein, "The Unintended Consequences of Cold War Area Studies," in *The Cold War & the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years*, ed. Noam Chomsky (New York: New Press, 1997), 195–231.

6 On Fairbank, see Paul M. Evans, *John Fairbank and the American Understanding of Modern China* (New York: Blackwell, 1988).

7 Olga Lomová, "Jaroslav Průšek (1906–1980): A Man of His Time and Place," *The Journal of the European Association for Chinese Studies*, 2 (2021): 169–196, https://journals.univie.ac.at/index. php/jeacs/article/view/6562/.

8 Werner J. Cahnman, "Outline of a Theory of Area Studies," *Annals of the Association of American Geographers* 38, no. 4 (1948): 40, citing David F. Bowers, "The Princeton Conference in American Civilization: A Description and an Appraisal" (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1944).

outside of their original context. To this end, area studies, Chinese studies included, were to encompass both philological and cultural-historical dimensions as well as the theories and methods of the social sciences. Their aim was thus to expand on philology's earlier aspiration to "know the spirit of a nation," that is, to enable "a comprehensive understanding of a given area, country, nation, or civilization."9

The original concept of area studies as preoccupied with ethnographic description based on sources in the language of the area was formulated by social scientists who found their theory-based knowledge of human society insufficient. One of the most important proponents of area studies, Robert B. Hall, a respected sociologist who did research in rural Japan, described this new discipline as beneficial to the one-sided theory-driven approach of the social sciences by providing them with a new perspective mediated through language and culture.10 He even anticipated that area studies would play an integrating role in the social sciences, which, in his view, were experiencing a "profound crisis" as the study of social reality had been fragmented into isolated disciplines and mutually exclusive theories. Hall and others also pointed out that the general theories formulated in the social sciences were originally based on observations of mere slices of human experience, usually American, and that to formulate truly general and universally valid theories, their generalizations must also incorporate experiences from other parts of the world.11

Developments in the social sciences, however, soon took another direction from what the original proponents of area studies envisioned, demanding scientific exactness in the manner of the technical and natural sciences.12 The production of knowledge in this spirit was based on mostly quantitative methods and general theories and models, which were supposed to guarantee objectivity and accuracy, and thus to enable predictions of future developments. In contrast, area studies take a bottom-up approach to the object of their interest in the geographical areas under study, from the perspective of the individual and the unique, and typically do not aspire to formulate general theories. Area studies soon

9 Ibid.

10 Robert B. Hall, *Area Studies: With Special Reference to Their Implications for Research in the Social Sciences* (New York: SSRC, 1947), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.\$b169219/.

11 Hall, *Area Studies,* 23. On ideas about the relationship between idiographic area studies and nomothetic social sciences, see also Immanuel Wallerstein, 1997.

12 Joel Isaac, "The Human Sciences in Cold War America," *The Historical Journal* 50, no. 3 (2007): 725–746.

found themselves at the center of controversy, with critics from the social sciences arguing that they lack a scientific theory of their own and thus cannot match the scientific value of social sciences, which view the world through the prism of theories and general models.

The first significant landmark in clarifying the positions in this debate came during a special panel held at the annual conference of the Association of Asian Studies in Washington in March 1964.13 With the exception of British anthropologist Maurice Freedman, who recommended that Chinese studies turn fully to the social sciences, the other presenters, to varying degrees, advocated the integrative quality of the area studies approach and pointed out the limits of "general" social scientific theories for properly understanding Chinese society and culture. The discussants did not reject the need for social sciences altogether; they just argued that without understanding China as a coherent whole (Mote) and its uniqueness (Skinner), the social sciences as such could not claim their theories were generally valid. For this reason, research on China-related topics could not be left in the hands of social scientists who lacked language and culture training. The view was also reiterated that area knowledge has the potential to enrich general theories with previously unreflected experiences of the Chinese world (Mary Wright).

In practice, the contradiction between the knowledge-of-the-area approach (descriptive, idiographic) and the social-sciences approach (theory driven, nomothetic) within Chinese studies, as in many other area studies, is not so absolute. Perhaps with the exception of economics and some branches of political science,14 the area approach, which takes into account the linguistic, cultural, and historical uniqueness and self-narratives of the society under study, is also becoming an integral part of research in social sciences, while theory-driven research is making

13 Part of the discussion was published in the same year in two numbers of the *Journal of Asian Studies* 23 under the headings of "Symposium on Chinese Studies and the Disciplines," no. 4 (1964), and "Comments on the 'Chinese Studies and the Disciplines' Symposium," *Journal of Asian Studies* 24, no. 1 (1964). Quoted in this article are the following published contributions from no. 4 of the journal: Joseph R. Levenson, "The Humanistic Disciplines: Will Sinology Do?," *The Journal of Asian Studies* 23, no. 4 (1964): 507–512; Mary C. Wright, "Chinese History and the Historical Vocation," *The Journal of Asian Studies* 23, no. 4 (1964): 513–516; William G. Skinner, "What the Study of China Can Do for Social Science," *The Journal of Asian Studies* 23, no. 4 (1964): 517–22; Maurice Freedman, "What Social Science Can Do for Chinese Studies," *The Journal of Asian Studies* 23, no. 4 (1964): 523–529; Frederick W. Mote, "The Case for the Integrity of Sinology," *The Journal of Asian Studies* 23, no. 4 (1964): 531–534; Benjamin Swartz, "The Fetish of the Discipline," *The Journal of Asian Studies* 23, no. 4 (1964): 537–538.

14 Mitchell L. Stevens, Cynthia Miller-Idriss and Seeteny Shami, *Seeing the World: How U.S. Universities Make Knowledge in a Global Era* (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2018).

inroads into humanities such as literature and art history. Area studies have also evolved in many different ways, especially after the cultural turn, and are naturally of a varied nature. What remains a signature mark of area studies is their linguistic focus, respect for local cultural differences, and contextualized multidisciplinary approach.15 David Szanton defines area studies as "an umbrella term for a family of academic disciplines and activities" in which five principles are intertwined: 1) intensive language study; 2) field research based on local languages; 3) attention to local histories, perspectives, materials, and interpretations; 4) testing, critically reassessing, or creating grounded theories based on detailed observation; and 5) multidisciplinary conversations often across the boundaries of the social sciences and humanities.16

### **Czech(oslovak) Sinology**

In the former Czechoslovakia, as is the case elsewhere in Europe, modern studies about China were built on the tradition of Oriental studies. The origins of Czech Sinology date to the late nineteenth century, to the work of Rudolf Dvořák, the first professor of Oriental philology at the Czech university in Prague. In addition to producing critical editions and translations from Persian, Arabic, and Hebrew, he also published translations of Confucian classics and the *Daodejing*. After Dvořák's untimely death in 1920, the first chair of Sinology was established only in late 1945 as "Philology and History of the Far East," which included the study of Japan and, a little later, Korea. As a result of the Communist victories in both Czechoslovakia and China in the late 1940s, Czechoslovak Sinology experienced rapid development driven by political interests not unlike those of American area studies, albeit with different geopolitical objectives. This also translated into new topics and approaches to studying China. While there was no institutional split between Sinology as classical

15 After E. Said's *Orientalism* and the rise of cultural studies, area studies were subjected to more critical scrutiny as they were accused of reproducing Orientalist prejudice in the service of Western hegemony. Since this discourse did not enter in full Czech academia yet and currently does not substantially impact the humanities–social sciences division central to our discussion, I exclude it from my brief overview. For a succinct presentation and innovative contribution to the discussion about area studies in twenty-first century, see Heike Holbig, *The Plasticity of Regions: A Social Sciences–Cultural Studies Dialogue on Asia-Related Area Studies*, GIGA Working Papers No. 267 (March 2015), http://www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers/.

16 David L. Szanton, "Introduction," in *The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines* (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010).

philology and a new discipline of the "Chinese studies" type, the field turned also to topical issues and expanded its multidisciplinary nature. Postwar Czechoslovak Sinology encompassed both ancient and modern China, while it at the same time introduced new disciplines such as theater studies, art history, musicology, philosophy, modern and contemporary history, and political science. Methodological innovation was crucial, namely from semiotics and structuralism, and of course Marxism.17

The institutional preservation of Sinology as one broad field of studies focused on China facilitated the development of a specific feature of Czechoslovak Sinology, namely the integration of knowledge about the classical and modern periods. This pioneering approach, for which Czechoslovak (and today Czech) Sinology earned an international reputation and is known as the "Prague School" among scholars of Chinese literature, views the question of modernization, central to area studies in the US, in its own way. From quite early on, Czechoslovak scholarship focused on the complexity of cultural transfer as part of modernization in which domestic conditions determine how new impulses are received and transformed in a modernizing country.

The persecution and tightened surveillance of the academic community after "allied" Warsaw Pact troops suppressed the Prague Spring in August 1968 marked the end of the activities of a significant part of Czechoslovak Sinologists and also interrupted the international academic contacts that had existed until then. Sinology's position within Czechoslovak academic institutions was further complicated by the fact that the People's Republic of China (PRC) used the Soviet-led attack on Czechoslovakia as evidence of Soviet "social imperialism" – against which China promoted its own version of Communist orthodoxy. As a result, the ideology and politics of the PRC, obligatorily interpreted from the perspective of the official Soviet "critique of Maoism," became the main subject of Sinological study and research at Charles University and the work of scholars at the Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences during the so-called period of normalization from the 1970s through 1989.

17 Sinology as a broad term encompassing research on both old and new China, language and culture based but at the same time involving social sciences, has also recently been revived in the concept of New Sinology vigorously promoted by the Australian scholar Geremie Barmé. He first described his concept in his "Towards a New Sinology," *Chinese Studies Association of Australia Newsletter* 31 (2005). See also his "What is New Sinology," in *A New Sinology Reader*, The Wairapa Academy for New Sinology, https://chinaheritage.net/reader/what-is-new-sinology/.

The preservation of Sinology as a holistic category that encompasses all research on China, regardless of the internal dynamics of the evolution of its content and methods, is related to the different ways in which universities functioned in Czechoslovakia (and function today in the Czech Republic) as compared to the United States, including funding. In fact, the terminological distinction between Sinology and Chinese studies, which gradually spread to some European countries, has been by no means universally adopted in Europe. Many German universities and the University of Zurich, Ghent University, and KU Leuven, among others, retain the original designation of *Sinology* regardless of the expanding scope and methods of research. Due to the general development of studies about China over the decades, and due to the diversity of approaches in Europe, the more conservative term *Sinology* and the new term *Chinese studies* can now mean essentially the same thing. The ambiguity in terminology is illustrated by the history of the name of the European professional association representing scholars researching China. It was founded shortly after World War II as the Junior Sinologues Conference, but it was renamed the European Association for Chinese Studies in 1976, when the US concept of area studies was gaining ground in Europe. The interchangeability of these two labels for China-related studies is reflected in the way in which the European Association for Chinese Studies lists relevant European institutions on its website as "Sinological," regardless of their profile.18

#### **Area Studies and Social Sciences Differently**

As a result of the division of the world during the Cold War, the Czech academic environment was confronted with the concept of "area studies" only after 1989. This was at the same time that the social sciences in Czechoslovakia, decimated during normalization by the demands of ideological conformity, were only beginning to recover and could hardly offer new inspiration to studies about China in terms of multidisciplinary teaching and research.

Thus, the concept of area studies was encountered only in an unreflected way, mostly through personal contacts. The first meetings after

18 "Sinological Institutes," European Association for Chinese Studies, last modified 2022, http:// chinesestudies.eu/?page\_id=1293/.

the Velvet Revolution between Czech Sinologists and their American colleagues introducing the Chinese studies concept did not always result in full mutual understanding. While some Czechs considered methodological innovation in the manner of Chinese studies without fully understanding the complex institutional background of area studies in general, the American scholars admired the solid linguistic foundation of Czech Sinology, including the study of the classical language and other practices in Czech Sinology that enabled applying knowledge about China old and new in a productive dialogue.

A similar discussion of the relationship between "areas" and "disciplines" as we have recapitulated above has not yet taken place in Czechoslovakia (since 1993, the Czech Republic), although the recently established Chinese language and culture program at Masaryk University in Brno now offers degree programs in "Chinese studies." However, in terms of content, the new program in Brno does not differ substantially from "Sinology" in Prague.

What has happened, however, has been the emergence of the new discipline of "area studies" (*areálová studia* in Czech) in Czech academia reinterpreted in the narrowly defined sense of "international area studies" and as a branch of political science, interchangeable with the notion of international territorial studies (*mezinárodní teritoriální studia*).19 In this peculiar manner "area studies" have been introduced at Charles University's Institute of International Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences, whose "current structure is the result of a long-term process characterized by, among other things, the purposeful formation of a new field of study, Area Studies."20 The institute's website provides a very narrow definition of area studies, highlighting the importance of the "new field … for the further development of the practice of Czech foreign and domestic policy." In other words, the concept of "area studies," unlike its original broader meaning, commonly used internationally, was introduced in Czech academia as limited to a practical branch of political science. On the same website we read that graduates of this program are "oriented toward the practical implications of recent historical events and relevant

19 See also the entry on Czech Wikipedia, which presents "teritoriální studia" as a Czech version of the English "area studies" entry at "Teritoriální Studia," Wikipedia, last modified April 1, 2022, https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teritori%C3%A1ln%C3%AD\_studia/.

20 "Institut", Institut mezinárodních studií, FSV UK, last modified 2022, https://ims.fsv.cuni.cz /institut-ims/. In the Czech version both "teritoriální studia" and "area studies" are mentioned as being equivalents.

contemporary issues [and] equipped with basic analytical-interpretive skills," while understanding of an area through its language and culture as included, for example, in Szanton's definition is not considered.

The transfer of the originally American concept of area studies to the Czech academic environment and its institutional reinterpretation in a very narrow sense differs from the prevailing international practice. For example, the Leiden University Institute for Area Studies (LIAS), which among other offers a program in Chinese studies, broadly defines its mission on its website as encompassing both the humanities and the social sciences and historical periods old and new. Above all, it emphasizes that its various fields of study are anchored in the languages and cultures of the respective areas, concluding with a statement that brings together the humanities and social sciences: "The areas studied are not only regarded as sources of data, but also as sources of theory and method that challenge disciplinary claims to universality."21

### **Institutional Interventions**

Using an imported concept in a radically narrowed-down meaning might not be detrimental for the development of full-fledged area studies in the sense these have been practiced for decades at Charles University. However, a serious problem may arise when a non-standard classification is projected into administrative categories on the basis of which the international assessment of academic excellence is conducted, followed by a new system of distribution of funding for research within the university. This is what happened at Charles University in 2021.

Sinology at Charles University has traditionally been classified as a "philological discipline." This corresponds to the field's roots in Oriental philology, its grounding in teaching languages and working with texts (written and spoken), and its research methods, which, as suggested above, are based on the awareness of language's role in mediating and shaping Chinese reality. However, the thematic breadth and multidisciplinary nature of Sinology as it is cultivated today at Charles University does not correspond to the current common understanding of the word *philology* as solely "the study of language and literature." Narrowing its

21 "Leiden Institute for Area Studies (LIAS)," Universiteit Leiden, https://www.universiteitle iden.nl/en/humanities/institute-for-area-studies/.

scope to language and literature in the current sense of these disciplines diverges from both the original meaning of Sinology as a holistic "science of China" and the twenty-first-century inherently multidisciplinary approach to China-related issues with overlaps between the humanities and social sciences. The openness of Sinology to different disciplinary approaches is a guarantee of its intrinsic strength and its ability to creatively develop its knowledge base, ask new relevant questions, and, finally, also to be legible to international partners in academic exchange.

Czech society today also expects more from a Sinologist than just knowledge of language and literature. In the Czech Republic, Sinology is still understood in a broad sense as "the science of China," and the range of job opportunities for Sinology graduates corresponds to this notion. In the first place, the Czech public assumes that a Sinologist "knows Chinese," but at the same time it demands from him or her broad knowledge of a universal "China expert." In an era of globalization and increasing geopolitical tensions, some of the most sought-after areas of expertise are in Chinese politics, international relations, ideology, and current issues in Chinese society and economics. The assumed expertise translates into media favor given to "Sinologists." Their authority in the Czech media is so great that even a social scientist without a background in Chinese studies may succumb to the temptation to present himself as a "Sinologist" when commenting on Chinese politics in the media.22

The consequence of the established classification of disciplines at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University was that despite the evolution of Czech Sinology in the direction of multidisciplinary teaching and research and the widespread understanding of Sinology as much broader than "language and literature" studies, in the academic excellence assessment of 2021 it was not considered to be a distinct field but was split into the disciplinary categories of "linguistics," "literature," and so forth. As a result, Sinology (and other similar disciplines) were essentially lost from the assessment, and it was therefore not possible to credibly fulfill the stated aim "to provide the necessary information to ensure internationally comparable quality of the disciplines,"23 not to mention to provide feedback for the disciplines themselves.

22 See brief biography of Richard Q. Turcsányi, a young scholar of international studies, at "Richard Q. Turcsányi," *Lidovky*, https://www.lidovky.cz/novinari/richard-q-turcsanyi.N4530/.

23 "Opatření rektora č. 44/2018 ve znění Opatření rektora č. 8/2019," Univerzita Karlova, https:// cuni.cz/UK-9615-version1-or\_2019\_08\_pril\_9.pdf/.

The quality assessment was followed by the preparation of new funding rules for research at Charles University with the objective to bring together fields of research of a similar nature to overcome excessive disciplinary fragmentation. In this process, contrary to the current practice in important centers of area studies in Europe which strive for interdisciplinarity, the social sciences and humanities were strictly separated from each other, and Sinology in the capacity of "philology" found itself associated with other "language and literature" research. It was only due to the intervention of several departments at the Faculty of Arts, including the Department of Sinology, that the classification was adapted to the actual practices of area-based fields of study. Eventually room was made in the classification for a separate group bringing together Asian studies (including Sinology), Middle Eastern studies, and Eastern European studies. However, they were denied the most obvious umbrella designation of "area studies," which within Charles University's classification scheme remains exclusively a practical skills-oriented subcategory of political science.

The peculiar interpretation at Charles University of the meaning of the recently imported notion of area studies and its incorporation into the mechanism of academic management demonstrates the risks of one-sided administrative intrusion into established practices. In the name of "internationally comparable quality," the top-down arrangement threatened the identity of some linguistic-and-cultural-knowledge-based disciplines, which has developed over a long period of time in a manner fully compatible with other important European centers of learning. The original administrative approach, together with the local narrow redefinition of the concept of area studies, reveals the pitfalls of borrowing an administrative classification that lacks a complex investigation of local traditions and a deeper understanding of the meaning behind the imported terminology.

The emergence and flourishing of American area studies after World War II was made possible by the initiative of policymakers and administrators, generous support from funding institutions, and also the initiative of a group of dedicated scholars with experience in social science research in linguistically and culturally diverse areas. As a result, new institutional frameworks and associated disciplines have expanded the research space and, in synergy with innovative research by individual scholars, have led to breaking down restrictive categories and disciplinary barriers. This enabled opening new paths to knowledge about the non-Western world.

In contrast, the recent experience from Charles University raises concerns about possible administrative interventions that, instead of opening new spaces, build artificial barriers, which may in the long term hinder the production of new types of knowledge. Scholars themselves are to blame as well, as they did not take a proactive approach to discussing development strategies in their respective fields of study. To be sure, Sinology and other similar area-oriented disciplines will continue to evolve spontaneously at Charles University, regardless of the barriers created by the understandable yet misleading desire for a simple classification for administrative purposes. However, the terminological confusion persists, and if the old Chinese wisdom saying "as regards the names in the world, at first, they are established as empty; but once they have become habitual, they cannot be changed,"24 holds true, then spontaneous development along the lines which bring humanities and social sciences into fruitful dialogue cannot be taken for granted forever.

24 Ma Chengyuan (ed.), *Heng Xian*, in *Shanghai Bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu VII* (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2008), strips 9–10, transl. by Kateřina Gajdošová.

### Bibliography

Ackerman, Bruce. *We the People, Vol. 1, The Fundations*. New York: The Belknap Press, 1991.

Lefebvre, Henri. *Critique of Everyday Life*. London: Verso, 2008.

Parsons, Talcott. "The Professions and Social Structure." *Social Forces* 17 (1939): 457–67.

Raz, Joseph. *Authority*. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.