As an educator at an international school located in a pre-dominantly South-Slavic cultural milieu, I see myself crossing several contact zones (sometimes more than one, simultaneously). While there is a dangerous sense of enjoyment that comes with this sort of ‘educational ventriloquism’, on the behalf of said practitioner, I cannot but help and wonder about its long-term effects. Exacted through the medium of the English language, students are encouraged to live out in what seems like an academic safe-haven: as they are continuously reminded of dominant social paradigms (gender, race and ethnicity, to name a few), and their operational value within ‘an imagined international community’, the language identity of their discourse becomes foreign, un-Balkan, yet also un-English. They seem to remain as dwellers of a cushioned ‘non-place’, a contact zone within a larger contact area, for the duration of their studies, and even beyond.
Thus, I am interested in getting some insight on the following aspects –
1.By attempting a ‘territory of culture’ through their respective academic missions and objectives, do international schools in the Balkans contribute to a (re)creation of a ‘pseudo nation-state’ scenario?
2.Even so, could their products (students) legitimately question the unspoken acceptance and affirmation of culturally determined roles, imposed on (Balkan) individuality by various mechanisms of compliance (governmental decisions, communal practices, tradition and gossip)?
3.Yet, when all is said and done, who is to implement a newly designed language mythos: individuals or institutions?
Subscribe