Neo-nationalism and the internationalization of higher education

• In Event: Nationalism in higher education

Proposal

Internationalization of higher education always must mitigate and adapt to changing political tides, sometimes in support of, or contrary, to national political regimes. In the current era, there has been a steady rise of neo-nationalism with consequent impact on institutions and systems of higher education (Douglass, 2021). Our paper asks: How does neo-nationalism and internationalization interact within higher education systems and cross-border initiatives? We use case studies of China, India, and Hungary to focus on this topic. Drawing on political determinism, we use Douglass’ (2021) framework to identify the crucial political and historical contexts of nation’s policies toward internationalization and how they intersect with mutating nation states’ politics. Our conceptual method draws out insights from pre-existing data and analysis, seeking to provide new frameworks and models for understanding how neo-nationalism and internationalization can co-exist (see, for example, work by Kweik [2017], Shahjahan & Kezar, [2013]).

Universities sit within nation states and are integrated into national plans and regimes. We need to understand the historical roles universities have played in previous political regimes in order to anticipate how higher education systems’ policies may change to adapt under neo-nationalism conditions. Depending where nations sit on the neo-nationalism spectrum, we will apply Douglass’ theory and test his hypothesis of this ‘political determinist view: the national political environment, past and present, is perhaps the most powerful influence on the mission, role, and effectiveness of universities, and the higher education systems to which they belong’ (p. 23). Some preliminary analyses of our three cases follows.

India
The National Education Policy (National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, 2020) of India proposes a comprehensive and overarching reform to the education system, including transforming the landscape of Indian education by internationalizing higher education. In an endeavor to establish India as “Viswa Guru” (India. Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020), a global contributor in higher education, the policy targets top 100 foreign institutions to set up international branch campuses and operate in India. Various models of partnership are outlined in the University Grants Commission guidelines (2021) which enumerate various strategies through a wide array of activities such as internationally relevant curricula, brand building of Indian Higher Education institutions abroad, academic and research collaboration with foreign universities, credit recognition under twinning arrangements etc. However, the ruling party’s interest in converting India into a Hindu Rashtra (Vaishnav, 2019) contradicts the internationalization framework that the NEP has outlined and suggests instead the leadership will focus on deepening Hindu nationalistic ethos (World Politics Review, 2021). As the conflation of religion, culture and education cannot be looked as mutually exclusive issues, we examine how the internationalization efforts proposed in NEP (National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, 2020) evolve under an administration that is utterly concerned with promoting secular prominence.

China
China has been increasingly keen over the last two decades to participate in international exchanges and cooperation, including sending and recruiting foreign students, carrying out international cooperative research, introducing international branch campuses and joint programs, etc. This development of internationalization is deeply rooted in the spirit of nationalism. Developing countries and post-industrialized countries usually take the education system of advanced countries as the blueprint to achieve rapid integration through application of "international standards" (Liu, 2001). In other words, internationalism and nationalism, these two seemingly contradictory ideas, historically, are very closely intertwined in the China case. Specifically, China's latest policy, China's educational modernization 2035, points out that it is necessary to further “create a new era of educational opening to the outside world” and “comprehensively improve the level of international exchanges and cooperation” (MOE, 2019). At present, China's internationalization in the next decade may show two trends. First, the foothold of internationalization in China is still nationalism, more and more attention paid to adhering to national characteristics and localization in the process of internationalization. Second, China has changed from mainly importing in the past 40 years to actively exporting to the world. Including "implementing the plan to study in China" and "accelerating the establishment of international schools with Chinese characteristics in other countries" (MOE, 2019). Its purpose is to seek to rejuvenate the ‘civilizational state’ through internationalizing higher education as soft power. (Lo & Pan, 2020)

Hungary
Issues of nationalism in Hungary can be traced back over several decades (Vambery, 1944) and it has again become an internationally discussed issue as the current prime minister, Viktor Orban, has worked to centralize control of the nation’s political operations (Zerofsky, 2019). While Hungary has long attracted international students from both Europe and beyond, the nation has recently shifted its international alignments in terms of importing higher education. Central European University was founded in 1991 to promote open societies and promote democratization following the fall of the iron curtain. It was originally located in Prague and moved to Budapest around 2000 following a fallout with CEU’s founder, George Soros, and the Czechoslovakian leader. Twenty years later another fall out between Soros and Orban is said to have led to a new national law that essentially targeted CEU, making the institution an illegal education entity after nearly 20 years of operation. However, at the same time as the country was focused on expelling CEU (the highest ranked university in Hungary) and other western-aligned institutions, the Hungarian government began negotiating with China to operate an IBC of Fudan University. This includes Hungary donating state-owned land on which a proposed $1.8 billion campus would be built. Hungary is footing the bill for the new campus, which exceeds the country’s total annual support for its public higher education systems. Hungary plans to fund 20% of the project from its central bank and take a $1.5 billion loan from a Chinese bank. Orban has argued the alignment will help attract new foreign investment and expand the nation’s innovative ecosystem. Critics have argued it’s another example of Orban’s government aligning with China. The contrast between the effort with Fudan IBC and CEU is a notable distinction in how nationalism intersects with internationalization.

Authors

• Chanjuan Peng, Beijing Normal University

• Jessica Schueller, Miami University

• Jason E Lane, Miami University

• Jill Borgos, SUNY, Delhi

• Khem Raj Sedhai, University at Albany- SUNY

• Melissa Brun, The Pennsylvania State University