The Biopolitics of International Youth Exchanges

• In Event: Journeys of Transformation and Strategy: An Insightful Exploration of Educational Approaches, International Higher Education, and EA Perspectives in a Global Context

Proposal

Youth exchanges are an important part of the international education landscape in the United States (US). The US government invests in exchange programs as a public diplomacy tool to support its foreign policy objectives. This case study examines two government-funded youth exchange programs, Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) and the Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study (YES). FLEX brings to the US a selective group of youth aged 15–19 from Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. They live with volunteer host families, attend high school, learn about American values, and share about their countries with Americans for an academic year. The goals of FLEX and YES are to promote mutual understanding between the US and other countries and to build a network of young leaders who are committed to democratic values.

Government-funded international exchange programs can be seen as a form of biopolitics. Biopolitics is the exercise of power over life and the body. In the context of international exchange programs, biopolitics is used to shape the bodies and minds of foreign youth. The FLEX and YES programs pride themselves on a rigorous selection process that admits only the most qualified youth with leadership potential. This process favors biopolitical bodies that meet specific criteria of identity and can appropriate dominant discourses (Anagnost, 2004; Amos, 2010; Erbsen, 2018). Both risk and potentiality accompany a biopolitical investment. There is always a risk that the invested body does not live up to its desired potentiality during the exchange. For example, an exchange student may not be able to adapt to the American way of life.

My inquiry mainly draws upon Foucauldian biopolitics, a theory that focuses on the body. I explore the forms of embodiment and subjectivity being promoted by these programs to answer the following research questions: (1) In what ways do the exchange programs attempt to instill the official norms and values of the program? (2) How do participants experience each aspect of the program and its processes, and to what extent do these experiences reflect program objectives?

This study took place in Hawai‘i, and it included 23 FLEX and YES exchange students from 19 countries, 19 host families, and two local coordinators. I collected qualitative data from 2017–2020 through semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and document review, to provide a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the exchange experiences. I used thematic analysis for the interpretation of the data. I established this study’s credibility through triangulation and member checking.

My findings paint a picture of highly structured public diplomacy. The ways these programs instill the official norms and values of American society are carried out (1) explicitly, as reflected in the program language and activities, and (2) implicitly, as part of the ambassadorial “job” of a selective group of foreign youth, guided by local coordinators and volunteer host families who are to keep these youth on track with the program objectives.

The programs focus their rhetoric on the “finalists,” “winners,” and “successful exchange students”. There is little room for students to make mistakes. Thus, the programs enable, regulate, monitor, and at times, they disable participants through the use of biopolitical mechanisms (Mills, 2020). Host families and local coordinators guide the youth to perform as the “ideal” subjects during the exchange. The programs do not shy away from monitoring students’ progress through various biopolitical measures, including evaluations, self-reflections, and monthly surveys, a summary of which is presented to the Department of State quarterly. The examples of these measures indicate the programs’ attempts to influence the living and being of the youth. Biopolitics reinforces the self-regulation of foreign bodies to the dominant power mechanisms.

American hosts, as public diplomacy ambassadors, have “the obligation and the opportunity to influence positively these students’ attitudes and perceptions about the US and its people” (ECA, 2007). The programs explicitly encourage hosts to correct attitudes and behaviors deemed inappropriate or in conflict with American values. In line with Mills’ (2020) findings, the ethnocentric language used in the program handbooks dictates the responsibilities of the youth and host families towards conformity to American norms and values. This can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism, as it positions American culture as superior to the cultures of the exchange students. To help with cultural adjustment, hosts are to embody American values, such as hospitality, positivity, and tolerance. Findings demonstrate hosts’ pride to spread American values. However, there are some tensions surrounding the public diplomacy role for both students and hosts. The ambassadorial duty comes with specific cultural, social, and political responsibilities that the youth may not be readily prepared for. This can be a burden for both students and hosts, as they may feel pressure to conform to American values and to represent their home countries in a positive light.

After completing their ambassadorial duties in the US, successful exchange students are granted the benefits of a biopolitical investment. They can join the exclusive alumni community, which provides access to grants, training opportunities, scholarships, and workshops to further their educational and career prospects. While the youth perceived the exchange as a stepping stone towards their own personal and professional advancement, enhanced socio-economic positioning at home, and future mobility, getting engaged in alumni networks would also tap into long-term US public diplomacy objectives. This would encourage youth to assume the role of leadership and change agents who willingly promote democratic values in their home societies.

In conclusion, the programs should revisit the ethnocentric language used in the program handbooks and orientations that serve as the main guidelines for a successful exchange. Rather than concerning itself with the “other”, the program should embrace diversity in all its forms. Indeed, the programs could pride themselves on American diversity all while encouraging American citizens to embrace the cultural differences that these youth bring into their homes.

Author

• Manca Sustarsic, University of Hawaii at Manoa