disciplinary options and consequences of ...

Kazimierz Musiał University of Gdańsk Södertörn University

DISCIPLINARY OPTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONTEMPORARY AREA STUDIES ON NORDIC AND BALTIC EUROPE DYSCYPLINARNE WYBORY I KONSEKWENCJE WSPÓŁCZESNYCH AREA STUDIES W ODNIESIENIU DO EUROPY NORDYCKIEJ I BAŁTYCKIEJ Key words: Area Studies, role of language in research, language and scientific research Słowa kluczowe: studia regionalne, rola języka w badaniach naukowych, Abstrakt Area Studies to interdyscyplinarny sposób badania rzeczywistości kulturowej, politycznej i społecznej danego obszaru. W rozdziale opisane są korzenie i tradycja tej niejednoznacznie definiowanej dyscypliny, jej lata świetności i politycznej atrakcyjności oraz jej kryzysu po zakończeniu zimnej wojny. Autor zarysowuje sposoby wyjścia z kryzysu Area Studies, z których najważniejszym jest większe docenienie roli języka w badaniu naukowym i, w związku z tym, postulat przywiązywania większej wagi do nauczania języków obcych. Wielojęzyczność określona zostaje jako warunek wstępny dla badaczy zajmujących się Area Studies, a perspektywa ta służy również jako rama odniesienia dla rozwoju studiów skandynawistycznych.

The current state of Area Studies bears witness to the change that academic disciplines in the social sciences and humanities undergo in response to the evolving social reality. This concerns both the content of Area Studies, their theoretical and methodological foundations, as well as their potential relevance and popularity. In this context, the domain of Scandinavian Area Studies as a very popular study programme offered at the University of Gdansk is a case in point. To put the development of Area Studies and Scandinavian Studies into the right perspective, this chapter proceeds by outlining the development of Area Studies as an academic discipline, and by showing its origins, scholarly popularity and political contingency as well as its alleged crisis ensuing after the Cold War has ended.

10

Kazimierz Musiał

Then, the perspective of Area Studies that now seek their way out of the crisis will be used as a possible frame of reference for the Scandinavian Studies. Finally, a number of solutions offered to reinvent Area Studies will be discussed. Special attention will be given to ascertaining the role of language in this process, not least with respect to its value as a means of imposing symbolic power in educational environments and in the academic discourse. In this context high quality teaching of less common languages like the Scandinavian ones may be seen as part and parcel of the solution sought by the epistemic community pursuing Area Studies.

1. Review of the classical approaches to pursue Area Studies Searching for an adequate definition of Area Studies yields a number of entries that on the one hand refer to a territory (an area) and, on the other hand, to the ways that this territory can be probed and comprehended by means of the available scholarship and research immersed in concurrent knowledge regimes. In 2015 Britannica Academic offered the following definition: Area studies, multidisciplinary social research focusing on specific geographic regions or culturally defined areas. The largest scholarly communities in this respect focus on what are loosely defined as Asian, African, Latin American, or Middle Eastern studies, together with a variety of subfields (Southeast Asian studies, Caribbean studies, etc.). Area-studies programs typically draw on disciplines such as political science, history, sociology, ethnology, geography, linguistics, literature, and cultural studies (Britannica Academic 2015).

Although this definition mentions a number of classical disciplines that typically have contributed to the development of Area Studies as a discipline in its own right, it also demonstrates a major drawback that lies in the application of popular frames referring to large cultural and political communities. In this way, injustice is being done to smaller cultural and linguistic communities that are not mentioned as a focus group of the Area Studies specialists. A greater problem arises from the fact that the definition reproduces a hegemonic perspective cultivating a colonial and post-colonial tradition that has been dominant for several decades and exerted symbolic power on the whole epistemological and ontological framing of Area Studies. Indeed, this is probably one of the greatest challenges in conceiving of Area Studies as a discipline that should aspire to objectivity and be free from its colonial and post-colonial legacies. As will be discussed at greater length in this chapter, the long shadow of colonial and post-colonial criticism, such as that of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1977), has been cast on the reinvention of both research and teaching in Area Studies.

Disciplinary options and consequences of contemporary area…

11

Due to the primary relevance of this chapter for the Scandinavian studies, two classical practices in Area Studies are mentioned: the German tradition and the Anglo-American one. Having grown out of different historical circumstances and contingencies, they have been both instrumental in framing Area Studies of Northern and Baltic Europe. Chronologically, the scholarly and scientifically substantiated interest in area studies has its roots in the German tradition that was conceived in the course of the 19th century. It may be seen as originating from Alexander von Humboldt’s scholarly work that established Landeskunde as a discipline worthy of academic interest in its own right. It grew out of a universal scientific curiosity that accompanied geographical discoveries and that already in the 18th century became an elaborated knowledge domain of the Enlightenment Philosophes (Wolff 1994). In the 19th century German national romanticism produced a need for local and translocal knowledge seeking its roots in Germanic/ Nordic mythology (Henningsen 1993; See 1970; 1983; Musiał 2001). The conceptual growth of German Area Studies ended and its scientificity was delegitimised when its academic representatives and disciplines were appropriated by the Nazi regime under the heading of Auslandswissenschaften, a branch of political science related to foreign policy (Nase 2016: 24). However, prior to its withering shortly before World War II, the German Area Studies tradition had created a substantial epistemological ballast. It is noteworthy that even today the conceptual framework of the 19th and early 20th century German scholarship related to Area Studies provides strands of ideas that facilitate contemporary conceptualisations of the field. One of the relevant terms developed in the German tradition is Landeskunde, the comprehensive study of – not necessarily foreign – places. In an excellent contribution on its development, Dieter Briesemeister (1997) points to the most characteristic element of the German tradition, that is the dominance of geography as the major adviser and interpreter of foreign lands and people. Landeskunde was based on the concept of land and people as “bonded in spirit”, an innate causal connection between the geographical features of a region and the mind-set of the people inhabiting it. It produced the notion of geographical determinism, often observable in travel accounts and geographic descriptions, and was enriched by the romantic and nationalist thought of the early 19th century. Furthermore, it added the idea that human life was a biologically and culturally grounded holistic phenomenon, and as such was autonomous and worthy of study. This school of thought produced Kulturkunde (cultural studies) or Volkskunde (folk studies). The all-pervasive “national spirit” (Volksgeist) and the “national way of thinking” (Nationaldenkart) were believed to express themselves in a distinct culture and politics. With such a universal approach, folklore studies gained prominence by becoming a “science of life as such”, and exerted a strong influence on 19th century German humanities. Landeskunde became an integral part of the

12

Kazimierz Musiał

school curriculum, a tool to instil a patriotic mind-set and regional pride in the young citizens of the culturally and religiously diverse Germany. What was more relevant for developing foundations of what later became Area Studies also served as the basis for a widespread popular interest in folklore and as the focal point of a number of academic disciplines, such as economics, statistics, political science and history. However, it also produced firm ideas of ethnically determined history that coupled with scientifically investigated national psychology (Völkerpsychologie) provided a base for völkisch and racial viewpoints (Briesemeister 1997: 33–44; Nase 2016: 23). The Landeskunde taught in German schools and academia also played an important role in the systematic expansion of philological studies understood not only as language training but also knowledge about the environment where the language functioned. While the middle of the 19th century already saw an expansion of foreign language training in universities, by the end of the century it was demanded that the study of foreign countries be intensified. It received support from political institutions as an educational programme aimed at the elites that were to become interested and knowledgeable in the matters of the state (Nase 2016: 23). In the post-WWII 20th century, the German interest in East Central Europe was kept alive due to the territorial losses that Germany experienced as a result of the lost war and the Yalta Conference verdict. Lost territories of the former East Prussia and the overall German presence on the southern and eastern coasts of the Baltic Sea became history and thereby lively objects of memory politics. The political developments produced the discourses of Baltendeutschen and the discourses of verlorene Heimat or Erinnerungsorte, all of which became a rich narrative soil to keep the German interest in North-Eastern and East-Central Europe alive and to provide grounds for a specific variant of Area Studies based on cultural memory politics (Henningsen, Kliemann-Geisinger and Troebst 2009). After the Cold War a more varied disciplinary interest in places and areas of North-Eastern and Baltic Europe as defined by heterogeneous histories, languages and literature can be witnessed, as exemplified by the works of Klaus Zernack (1993), Stefan Troebst (1999), Ralph Tuchtenhagen (1999), Bernd Henningsen (2012) or Jörg Hackmann (2002). After World War II, with the demise of the German instrumentalisation of Landeskunde regarding Northern and North-Eastern Europe as a means of the Nordisch or völkisch identity-building project (Musiał 2001), the Anglo-American way of pursuing Area Studies became ever more prominent. Until the 1990s it had dominated the field because, as can be argued, it successfully established and maintained the Area Studies profile at the intersection of academia and foreign policy. It was the political and strategic expediency emerging during World War II to gain a deepened understanding of the German or Japanese mentality and


13

decision-making that spurred interest and gave coordinated support to regional and cultural studies of foreign regions. The post-war situation when the US confronted the then puzzling geopolitical challenge posed by the Soviet Union and got engaged with political developments all over the world, led decision-makers to develop an increased interest in the provision of usable and practical knowledge of the regions where the US was then involved. To stay abreast of these developments, an institutional arrangement was needed to process knowledge available in the form of statistical and economic material. However, according to some academics and policy-makers, Western social theory might not adequately account for the workings of non-Western societies. What was needed, therefore, was to create an extensive and interdisciplinary research initiative. The confluence of political interest and academic curiosity led to a remarkable growth of Area Studies in institutions as well as in teaching and research. The political task assigned to the academia was buttressed with liberal funding from foundations, such as Ford and Rockefeller while their graduates and their research outcome were desired by state agencies. Although from the 1960s onward the academia had largely emancipated itself from its political task, many area specialists became fiery critics of the political agendas they were expected to help implement. Arguably, it gave rise to what nowadays is called Critical Area Studies, meaning a higher level of reflection on the object of research and taking into account different disciplinary frames (Braune and Rohde 2015; Letteval 2016). Nevertheless, enmeshments between academic research and state service remained commonplace in the US, thereby securing Area Studies its prominence and financial support in the American academia for several decades (Szanton 2004: 1–33). Marco Nase (2016: 19) has noted that the American type of Area Studies is based on an organizational framework that includes several disciplines, predominantly from within the humanities and social sciences, and is formed by areafocused departments, centres or institutes. Despite different conceptualisations of what an area or a region under investigation is or may denote, the ontological premises of pursuing research and analyses rest upon the conceiving of the region as “other” than the researcher’s culture and, therefore, in need of translation. Nowadays American-type Area Studies are unambiguously associated with the Cold War and protecting American interests. Historically expedient and shaped by the political needs of the post war era, they have developed as a study of nonWestern regions with a predominant focus on linguistic and cultural competence. Knowledge generated in this type of Area Studies had to have practical implementation and this typically included being useful for making decisions in high politics and gaining a competitive advantage during the Cold War. Hence, the national security concerns were among the main reasons to pursue Area Studies during and immediately after World War II. In the following years, gaining an economic or technological advantage became issues that helped secure further funding and

14

Kazimierz Musiał

sponsoring of this interdisciplinary field. Among relevant disciplines, literary studies and less ‘applied’ branches of the social sciences did not enjoy so much support and funding as they were not in a position to provide insights and methods for the functional understanding of foreign cultures, with the aim of facilitating strategic predictions, planning and decision-making.

2. Criticism of traditional Area Studies and its consequences for studies of Northern and Eastern Europe Apparently, the most spectacular critical wave challenging Area Studies has its intellectual origin in the regions that have been under scrutiny. The “orientalism” debate that arose after the publication of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1977) provided a frame for an influential critique of Western constructions of the “Orient” and the ways it had been studied. In this view Area Studies naturalised the imperialist symbolic power and expressed a condescending worldview regarding the “other”. As a result, the object of research had to be redefined especially because the production of academic knowledge on non-Western societies was called into question. Clear dispositions of the observing scholars from the West to study, describe and analyse the silent non-Western “other” were more and more frequently challenged by the subalterns who now have been empowered to speak their own mind and to propose their own research agenda. In line with the constructivist paradigm gaining prominence in the social sciences and humanities, a complete overhaul of Area Studies was inevitable. It resulted in the development of postcolonial studies that sharply criticized mainstream Western academic approaches as being part of an international system of domination in continuity with the colonial past. Almost all branches of humanities and social sciences have been affected but the impact of the postcolonial approaches has been strongest in literary theory and cultural studies. Due to the political developments but also because of the issues raised in the postcolonial frameworks, researching liminal cases and questioning the centreperiphery power relations and dependencies have been on the rise since the end of the Cold War. These developments have also been quite evident in North-Eastern, Baltic and Central Europe. Although these parts of Europe have made a transition to become parts of the West, they have still been subject to their status of the observed subalterns. Arguably, they have suffered from the previously naturalised “cognitive colonisation” (Musiał 2015) or “doxic subordination”, as formulated by Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992), meaning internalised and unreflecting dependency of the peripheral states on the Western centres of power. It has become apparent that when attempting to overcome the legacy of the Soviet era, appreciating


15

smaller cultures and less common languages is a political issue. Therefore, in what can be regarded as a post-colonial frame, more and more frequently the voice was given to the subalterns who have been gaining political and economic agency in their own regions and territories (Zarycki 2013; Korek 2007). Contemporary social trends in Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea region towards increasing multiculturalism and ethnic diversity pose a challenge to pursuing studies regarding these areas. What is more, the language for communicating and mediating observable differences is often borrowed from outside. The choice of English appears to be a pragmatic solution, and as part of the Western “civilizational” package (Musiał 2015) it has become a dominant medium of communication in the academia, both in research and increasingly so in teaching. What is noteworthy is that despite rising awareness about the heterogeneity of peoples and ethnicity in these regions, teaching their smaller languages is often neglected, not to mention their declining role in research or academic communication. At best these languages become the second or third choice in the linguistic education of the youth. Arguably, neglecting thorough language education at the highest level has a negative effect on Area Studies. I would assert that thereby a whole cultural diversity as well as social, cultural and economic life in large parts of multicultural regions cannot be fully accessed, appreciated and valued. The Area Studies researchers are expected to perform translation of the other epistemic systems into their own knowledge regimes but the best understanding and optimal translation of the “other” culture is possible when the researcher is familiar with the language upon which a given culture has been founded. Only with the language understood as a tool for structuring society, constructing and framing culture of a given community is it possible to understand the mechanisms and rules operating in this community (Byram 2008: 125–141). Therefore, it is worth asking how to raise awareness about the necessity of linguistic training for producing top-notch research output in Area Studies. To meet this challenge, it may be fruitful to rediscover one of the foundations of the Area Studies, namely that of the adequate linguistic competence and linguistic awareness of the scholars pursuing research in this field. Cross-cultural pragmatic competence, for instance, claimed as indispensable to analyse issues of culture, language and policy interconnectedness in a given area under investigation, should preferably include meta-linguistic competence regarded as an advanced skill to understand culture-based norms transferred to and through the language (KarpińskaMusiał 2015: 126–127). Thus, traditional philology as an academic discipline has been regarded as crucial for Area Studies and as its necessary component. The language learning at universities has, as the German tradition of Landeskunde has demonstrated, to an increasing degree included knowledge about the society and culture of a given speech community. Furthermore, the best academic training

16

Kazimierz Musiał

programmes in Area Studies, such as the one offered by the United States Military Academy at West Point, do include a thorough and in-depth study of the language. The reasons for this have been manifold, starting from the practical effort to imitate the native speakers both in speech and action, through the educational methods suggesting total physical and cultural immersion, and ending with the deepening insight into socio-linguistics and growing awareness about intercultural and global dimensions of language learning. Therefore, while language learning and linguistic competence as part of Areas Studies appear indispensable, greater attention should be paid to multilingual education and the training of multicultural awareness. There seem to be two main reasons for that, one pertaining to identity issues and concerns, and the other – to the increasing need for, and challenge of, establishing a knowledge regime that would be more heterogeneous and universally acceptable. With regard to the identity issues and concerns arising from globalisation and massive migrations of the recent years, we witness unwanted consequences of mono-lingualism and the aforementioned dominance of the Anglo-American language regime and knowledge regime. The language regime, be it monolingual or multilingual, has a bearing on identity and may be instrumental in strengthening or weakening linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992). Life in liquid modernity, as Zygmunt Bauman (2000) describes the current stage of world development, creates different identities that in order to survive require other instruments to be formed than those typical of the previous stages. Competence in several languages is arguably one of such instruments as it provides individuals with a potential for a more diversified identity that is open to transformation in light of the emerging challenges. An Area Studies researcher should be not only aware of these phenomena, but also able to investigate them through direct engagement with a given speech community. This would also help provide and develop academic education towards intercultural citizenship that, as Michael Byram (2008: 177–203) contends, is of crucial importance when dealing with multicultural challenges of the day. Furthermore, linguistic competence has a bearing on the knowledge regime we live by and accept as part of our naturalized worldview. Linguistic competence or incompetence create our dispositions to fare better or worse in the world and make sense of its variety and multifarious character. Already in the 19th century Wilhelm von Humboldt claimed that “Language is the formative organ of thought”1 and this language philosophical remark has remained valid until the present moment. Jürgen Trabant, Professor Emeritus of Romance Languages at Freie Universitaet Berlin, has noted that at least since Humboldt’s time and thanks to his research we have known that languages not only “represent” thought, but also “produce” thought or, as Humboldt put it, they “discover the truth” (Trabant 2016: 1

“Die Sprache ist das bildende Organ des Gedanken” (Humboldt 1903–1936: VII: 53).


17

135). Consequently, as there are many languages, there is also a huge number of worldviews that coexist, not only a huge number of sounds and signs. In order to study the different worldviews and to get insight into how they make sense of the world, one should be aware of the plurality and insist on developing communication skills in several languages. The other reason for supporting multilingual education as a means of enriching Area Studies and for leading the field out of its current crisis pertains to the intrinsic link between a linguistic identity and a social identity represented by cognitive frames, cognitive system and the cultural values. The multilingual competence may be a good tool to answer the challenge of establishing a new knowledge regime that would be able to accommodate the currently appreciated multiculturalism and linguistic heterogeneity characterising current world development.

3. Conclusion As mentioned, during the Cold War the field of Area Studies – also targeting the Baltic Sea Region and Eastern Europe – flourished and established a specific knowledge regime, i.e. the organizational and institutional machinery that gen-erated data, research, policy recommendations, and other ideas that influenced public debate and policymaking. After the demise of Germany in World War II, also the academic production was dominated by the victorious powers. The Brit-ish, American and to a limited degree other West European discourses built Area Studies on naturalised dichotomies (observing West – observed East, innovative North – developing Central-Eastern Europe) and on the linguistic dominance of English as the language of description and research. These acts of framing per-formed by academics and scholars in Europe imposed supremacy of the AngloAmerican symbolic power and promulgated a vision of the world as a system of predictable, culturally and politically contained regimes. In the postwar Area Studies, language ideology served as a buttress of the Anglophone symbolic power and was aided by the subsequent commodification and export of English. While the prevailing teaching models treated language as an isolable structural entity that could be aligned with the universals of mind rather than anchored in the specifics of culture, the ultimate goal of language learning was for a long time to acquire the fluency and competency of the native speakers (Rampton 2009: 702; Pennycook 1994). With the Baltic Sea Region, Eastern and Central Europe undergoing a number of radical and thorough political, economic and cultural transformations, studying them both as objects and subjects of Area Studies poses a range of methodologi-cal and theoretical challenges. It is all the more challenging as the field has been going through an exercise in re-establishing itself as an interdisciplinary offer, but

18

Kazimierz Musiał

it has to operate in a much more heterogeneous and unpredictable international environment. Now, as before, it has an ambition to function as a meeting platform for country- and region-related knowledge and in so doing it may be of crucial importance in a time of growing uncertainty in the world affairs. In this as in other regions of the world, intensive language training, preferably in several languages, could help renew Area Studies and face the inevitable heterogeneity of the emerging knowledge regimes.

Bibliography Britannica Academic (2015), Area studies, http://academic.eb.com/EBchecked/topic/1995951/area-studies [access: 7.12.2015]. Bauman Z. (2000), Liquid Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press. Braune I., Rohde A. (2015), Critical Area Studies, “Middle East – Topics & Arguments” 4. Briesemeister D. (1997), Landeskunde – Kulturkunde – Auslandskunde. Historischer Rückblick und terminologischer Überblick [in:] B. Henningsen, S.M. Schröder (Hrsg.), Vom Ende der Humboldt-Kosmen. Konturen von Kulturwissenschaft, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Bourdieu P., Wacquant L.J.D. (1992), Réponses. Pour une anthropologie réflexive, Paris: Le Seuil. Byram M. (2008), From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship. Essays and Reflections, Clevedon–Buffalo–Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Hackmann J. (2002), From “Object” to “Subject”: The Contribution of Small Nations to Region-Building in North Eastern Europe, “Journal of Baltic Studies”4. Henningsen B (1993), Der Norden: Eine Erfindung Das europäische Projekt einer regionalen Identität, Antrittsvorlesung 28.05.1993, Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Henningsen B. et al. (1998), Wahlverwandtschaft, Skandinavien und Deutschland 1800– 1914, Berlin: Jovis Verlagsbüro. Henningsen B. (2012), On Identity – No Identity, Copenhagen: Baltic Development Forum. Henningsen B., Kliemann-Geisinger H., Troebst S. (2009), Transnationale Erinnerungsorte: Nord- und Südeuropäische Perspektiven, Berlin: BWV Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag. Humboldt W. von (1903–1936), Gesammelte Schriften, 17 Bde., Hrsg. A. Leitzmann et al., Berlin: Behr. Karpińska-Musiał B. (2015), Międzykulturowość w glottodydaktyce, Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Korek J. (ed.) (2007), From Sovietology to Postcoloniality. Poland and Ukraine from a Postcolonial Perspective, Huddinge: Södertörns högskola. Lettevall R. (2016), Conducting Area Studies with a Wide Open Mind, “Baltic Worlds. Inhouse edition”. Musiał K. (2001), ”Nordisch – Nordic – Nordisk”. Die wandelbaren Topoi-Funktionen in den deutschen, anglo-amerikanischen und skandinavischen nationalen Diskursen [in:] A. Bänsch; B. Henningsen (Hrsg.), Die kulturelle Konstruktion von Gemeinschaften.


19

Schweden und Deutschland im Modernisierungsprozeß, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Musiał K. (2009), Reconstructing Nordic Significance in Europe on the Threshold of the 21st Century, “Scandinavian Journal of History” 3. Musiał K. (2015), Benevolent Assistance and Cognitive Colonisation: Nordic Involvement with the Baltic States since the 1990s [in:] L. Clerc, N. Glover, P. Jordan (eds.), Histories of Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding in the Nordic and Baltic Countries. Representing the periphery, Leiden: Brill Publishing. Nase M. (2016), Academics and Politics. Northern European Area Studies at Greifswald University, 1917–1991, Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations 121, Huddinge: Södertörn University. Pennycook A. (1994), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Longman. Phillipson R. (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rampton B. (2009), Speech Community and Beyond [in:] N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds.), The New Sociolinguistics Reader, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Said E. (1977), Orientalism, London: Penguin. See K. von (1970), Deutsche Germanen-Ideologie. Vom Humanismus bis zur Gegenwart, Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum-Verlag. See K. von (1983), Das “Nordische” in der deutschen Wissenschaft des 20. Jahrhunderts, “Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik” 2. Szanton D. (2004), The Origins, Nature and Challenge of Area Studies in the United States [in:] D. Szanton (ed.), The Politics of Knowledge. Area Studies and the Disciplines, Berkeley: University of California Press. Trabant J. (2016), Theses on the Future of Language [in:] B. Mersmann, H.G. Kippenberg (eds.), The Humanities between Global Integration and Cultural Diversity, Berlin: De Gruyter. Troebst S. (1999), Nordosteuropa: Geschichtsregion mit Zukunft, “NORDEUROPAforum” 1. Tuchtenhagen R. (1999), Nordosteuropa [in:] H. Roth (Hrsg.) Studienhandbuch Östliches Europa, Bd. 1: Geschichte Ostmittel- und Südosteuropas, Köln: Bühlau. Wolff L. (1994), Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Zarycki T. (red.) (2013), Polska Wschodnia i orientalizm, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. Zernack K. (1993), Nordosteuropa. Skizzen und Beiträge zu einer Geschichte der Ostseeländer, Lüneburg: Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk.