Documenting the American Student Abroad: The Media Cultures of International Education 9781978807723

Citation preview

DOCUMENTING THE A MERIC AN STUDENT ABROAD

DOCUMENTING THE A MERIC AN STUDENT ABROAD The Media Cultures of International Education

Kelly H a nkin

Rutger s Un i v er sit y P r ess New Brunswick, Camden, and Newark, New Jersey, and London

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Names: Hankin, Kelly, author. Title: Documenting the American student abroad : the media cultures of international education / Kelly Hankin. Description: New Brunswick, New Jersey : Rutgers University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020010751 | ISBN 9781978807686 (paperback) | ISBN 9781978807693 (cloth) | ISBN 9781978807709 (epub) | ISBN 9781978807716 (mobi) | ISBN 9781978807723 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH:Foreign study—­Social aspects. | International education— ­Social aspects. | Mass media and education—­United States. | Mass media— ­United States—­Influence. | Education and globalization. Classification: LCC LB2375 .H365 2021 | DDC 370.116—­dc23 LC rec­ord available at https://­lccn​.­loc​.­gov​/­2020010751 A British Cataloging-­in-­Publication rec­ord for this book is available from the British Library. Copyright © 2021 by Kelly Hankin All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Please contact Rutgers University Press, 106 Somerset Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. The only exception to this prohibition is “fair use” as defined by U.S. copyright law. The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—­Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. www​.­rutgersuniversitypress​.­org Manufactured in the United States of Amer­i­ca

To Simon Barker, travel guide extraordinaire

CONTENTS



Introduction: The Media Cultures of Study Abroad

1

The Personal Is Professional: First-­Person Travelogues and the Study Abroad Video Contest

26

Intercultural Communication among “Intimate Strangers”: Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and Documentary Study Abroad

51

House Hunters International: Homestay Movies in the Digital Era

79

2 3 4

Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem: Vlogs as Necessary Media

1

105

5

Spy Kids: The Consequences of Global Citizenship in Game of Pawns 122

6

Study Abroad and the Female Traveler in the “Amanda Knoxudramas”

147

Acknowl­edgments 169 Notes 173 Bibliography 207 Index 233

vii

DOCUMENTING THE A MERIC AN STUDENT ABROAD

INTRODUCTION The Media Cultures of Study Abroad

As an undergraduate attending a large public university in the late 1980s, I had l­ittle awareness of study abroad. Though my university prob­ably had a study abroad office, nobody I knew ever used it. If ­there ­were promotional brochures and fliers about study abroad options, I certainly ­didn’t register them. Leaving the country to attend college abroad seemed about as likely as traveling to the moon. What ­little I knew about study abroad came from a series of instructional videos regularly screened in my French class. Each week, I would eagerly anticipate viewing an episode of French in Action, an educational video–­cum–­romantic comedy in fifty-­two installments. Developed in 1987 by a Yale professor and funded by the Annenberg Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, French in Action taught the French language through the story of Robert, a young American man studying abroad in France, and Mireille, his French love interest. While I ­don’t recall much about ­either Robert’s study abroad experience or his romantic escapades with Mireille, I vividly remember the way Mireille was overtly sexualized by the camera, which slowly lingered over the contours of her breasts and legs. As this was before my feminist awakening, I confess I was titillated rather than outraged. But over at Yale, the French language students w ­ eren’t putting up with it; in 1990 they filed a sexual harassment grievance with the university claiming French in Action’s sexism interfered with their successful learning.1 ­Today, at the private liberal arts university where I teach, students would be hard-­pressed not to know about study abroad. Like many American liberal arts universities, the University of Redlands extols the virtues of study abroad and provides numerous opportunities for students to travel as part of their 1

2

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

education. Moreover, my students exist in a radically dif­fer­ent media landscape than I did as an undergraduate, before the widespread adoption of the internet. In contrast to my experience, they have an extensive array of visual resources about study abroad at their fingertips. No longer relegated to undetected promotional fliers or sexist educational videos, media about study abroad now comes in a range of forms, from film and tele­vi­sion to digital video and vlogs, and circulates widely in the public sphere.2 This media is produced by a broad range of stakeholders, ­shaped through a wide variety of documentary modes, and screened in radically diverse contexts, from institutional conferences to foreign bedrooms. Documenting the American Student Abroad: The Media Cultures of International Education is about this new media culture and how it both shapes and reveals con­temporary understandings of the value and practice of study abroad. As this media culture serves to advance the values and mission of the study abroad industry, I argue that it functions as a “useful cinema,” what Haidee Wasson and Charles R. Acland describe as films that are harnessed by institutions and their agents to “satisfy orga­nizational demands and objectives, that is, to do something in par­tic­u­lar.”3 According to Wasson and Acland, useful cinema first and foremost serves or responds to institutional ideologies and practices. Though it occasionally may be entertaining and well crafted, the goal of useful cinema is less about advancing the art of cinema or entertaining audiences than it is about “the maintenance and longevity of institutions seemingly unrelated to cinema.” 4 The history of film is filled with such practices. Over the course of the moving image’s existence, it has had many official, informal, and shadow collaborators across a range of industries, institutions, and practices. Film and media scholars have unearthed cinema’s rich partnerships with transportation and tourism, public health, medicine, K–12 education, ­human resources and employee training, government agencies, the military, philanthropic organ­izations, community activism, and civic and religious institutions.5 To understand useful cinema and the institutional facets of cultural life, Wasson and Acland argue for the necessity of situating it within the intersection of “film form, audiovisual technologies, and . . . ​institutional mandates and spaces.”6 My own analy­sis of study abroad media cultures is particularly indebted to this concept. I understand study abroad and media as partners in the creation of a useful media that is produced at the intersection of study abroad institutions and their agents, discourses and orthodoxies around international education, economic exigencies and strategies, technologies and ideologies of vision, mediated travel and touristic practices, and media histories

Introduction 3

and practices. Together, ­these disparate and often ideologically incompatible components form the tapestry of study abroad media culture. This is a media culture that serves or responds to the institutions, ideologies, and practices of study abroad rather than primarily ­those of entertainment. What is the media culture of study abroad? It is first and foremost media that is produced by stakeholders in the practice of international education. Managerial theory defines stakeholders as “groups and individuals who can affect (or be affected by)” an organ­ization.7 Given the expansiveness of this definition, stakeholders are a heterogeneous and ever-­shifting group, ranging from ­people who financially benefit from organ­izations to ­people interested and enmeshed in its ideals and pursuits. This can include every­one from shareholders, employees, and customers to competitors, experts, and policymakers.8 While this heterogeneity means that stakeholders do not always agree on orga­nizational practices and goals, they all share an investment in their outcome. Study abroad media, then, is media produced by the groups and individuals invested in the practices and values of study abroad. This includes program vendors, thought leaders, students, parents, the U.S. government, and the concerned “public.” Thus, study abroad media does not typically include commercial narratives about Americans studying abroad. While they may contribute to cultural understandings of study abroad, their stakeholder relationship to the institution of study abroad is arguably minor, neither overtly concerned with nor speaking to its mission. Commercial repre­sen­ta­tions of American students abroad often showcase engagement with foreign cultures in ways that are fundamentally at odds with the official values, practice, and messaging of study abroad, which typically revolve around the concepts of cultural immersion, meaningful intercultural communication, and global citizenship. Instead, as commercial repre­sen­ta­tions of Americans studying abroad are most often situated within coming-­of-­age comedies or horror/thriller films, intercultural contact is generally framed by chaos, sexual desire, or fear. Therefore, the institutional values central to study abroad are more often upended than advanced. For example, in coming-­of-­age comedies such as Take Her, She’s Mine (Henry Koster, 1963), Winning London (Craig Shapiro, 2001), and Eurotrip ( Jeff Schaffer and Alec Berg, 2004), cultural immersion is often reduced to e­ ither romantic or humorously chaotic mise-­en-­scène that enables cultural difference to serve as a colorful and quirky backdrop to stories of personal adventure. In ­these films, intercultural communication typically amplifies ste­reo­types, cultural immersion most often leads to trou­ble, and global competence generally involves comedic capers that wreak havoc on foreign soil.

4

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

In turn, in horror films and thrillers, such as Suspiria (Dario Argento, 1977; Luca Guadagnino, 2018), Fright Night II: New Blood (Eduardo Rodriguez, 2013), and Hostel I and II (Eli Roth, 2005, 2007), cultural immersion and intercultural communication put students in physical and psychological peril, creating fear of rather than empathy for cultural difference. To be sure, ­these conventions ­don’t make commercial narratives about study abroad any less culturally significant, their interpretative possibilities any less generative, or their relationship to study abroad any less instructive to students. But as they ­don’t overtly serve or respond to the institutional mission and tenets of study abroad, commercial narratives—­with one exception—­exist outside the book’s framework of study abroad’s useful cinema. Indeed, the narrative films t­ hose in the study abroad community most often recommend for predeparture students typically do not include films featuring Americans students abroad.9 Thus, save one exception I discuss ­later in the introduction, for study abroad’s media cultures, this book primarily looks elsewhere. As is the case with most useful cinema, study abroad media exists primarily in the realm of nonfiction media. ­Because this is a broad, fuzzy, and ever-­ expanding category, study abroad media culture includes every­thing from traditionally indexed long-­form documentary to vlogs on YouTube that run less than three minutes. This diverse media is likewise animated by a wide range of stakeholders who work in dramatically dif­fer­ent production contexts, from students creating videos during study abroad trips to the U.S. government producing films in professional studios. Yet, as I ­will show, despite its many ­faces and practices, the vast majority of study abroad media, including forms specific to the digital age, draw on well-­worn documentary genres, rhe­toric, and tropes, from travelogues, autobiographical films, and home movies to real­ity tele­vi­sion and docudramas. One of the book’s central contentions, then, is that the documentary modes that compose study abroad media cultures also profoundly shape their institutional messages. Chapters explore—to a greater or lesser degree—­the interaction between study abroad rhe­toric and specific documentary modes, demonstrating how the latter informs, rather than merely reveals, the former. In pursuing this line of inquiry, Documenting the American Student Abroad does not seek to make claims about the ontological status of documentary; chapters neither pursue precise categorical definitions of documentary nor reject claims to them on specific grounds. Instead, I agree with ­those scholars who recognize the fuzziness, fluidity, and widening of documentary’s borders and the relevance of the relationship among form, real­ity, and viewer for categorical definitions.10 Instead of focusing on the ontological status of documentary, Documenting the American

Introduction 5

Student Abroad explores its many f­ aces and practices—­from the well known to the newly emerging, the sanctioned to the contested—in order to highlight what happens when ­these styles and practices intersect with institutional agendas. Accordingly, while I pull from a range of multidisciplinary sources to build my arguments, one of the main guides for the book’s assertions is the wide-­ ranging field of documentary studies, particularly the research and insights of scholars working on the ideological functions of old and new documentary forms. While not all the scholars I draw on identify as documentary scholars nor likely share the same definition of documentary, all have greatly contributed to the understanding of the broad range of historical and con­temporary media operating ­under this sign. Their rich work on how the conventions and tropes of documentary shape meaning, ideologically embed themselves in cultural artifacts, migrate across cultural forms, and generate new meanings in dif­fer­ent contexts is what enabled this book to take shape. A more detailed explanation of how I draw on documentary scholarship appears in my chapter breakdown at the end of this introduction. By focusing on the media cultures of study abroad, Documenting the American Student Abroad also contributes to the growing scholarship on the ongoing intertwining of travel, tourism, and the moving image. Thus, the second guide for this book is the rich historical and theoretical work on this symbiotic relationship. As it points to the central role of media in travel practices and identities, as well as demonstrates the per­sis­tence of time-­honored travel tropes in con­temporary media, this scholarship provides the conceptual backbone for the book’s overarching claim that media and study abroad are mutually informing practices. It is to the insights of this scholarship that I now turn.

Mediated Travel In 2016, at the age of forty-­six, I went on my first official study abroad, albeit this time as a teacher to a group of American undergraduates in Salzburg, Austria. Shortly before classes began, the students and I traveled via bus through Italy, briefly touring some of the country’s most visited sites. Not long ­after I had met the students, some of the young ­women informed me that I reminded them of Angela Ungermeyer (Alex Borstein), the strict and acerbic high school principal who chaperones Lizzie and her friends on a school trip to Rome in the teen comedy-­cum-­travelogue The Lizzie McGuire ­ ese students continued to reference the movie Movie ( Jim Fall, 2003). Th

6

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

throughout the two months I was with them, revealing the significant impression it made before their Eu­ro­pean travel. That they saw themselves as some version of the film’s students was clear, especially since the parallels between their experience and the visual repre­sen­ta­tion ­were at least superficially apparent. Though they ­were older than the students in the movie—­Lizzie and gang are just entering high school—my students ­were likewise on a bus trip to Italy, chaperoned by several adults, and guided by rules they often ignored. They also designed their own travel experiences and memories according to Lizzie and her cohorts, making sure, for example, to visit and take pictures in front of Rome’s Trevi Fountain just as they did. The Lizzie McGuire Movie thus offered my students a reference for what Eu­ro­pean study abroad looks like, provided a blueprint for their own travels, and provided a lens through which they could view their own experience. This experience of travel mediated through cinematic repre­sen­ta­tion is neither unique to my students nor revelatory in academic scholarship. It is by now well established by media scholars that cinema is, as Jeffrey Ruoff calls it, a “machine for travel.”11 As they emerged in the same historical moment, moving image technology and mass tourism ­were mutually dependent industries.12 As numerous film historians have shown, the very genre dedicated to travel—­the travelogue—­was central to the birth, development, and success of the new medium of moving pictures.13 Travelogues w ­ ere one of the most common genres of early cinema, not only exhibited widely across the globe but also serving to visually define and pop­u­lar­ize its many landscapes.14 ­These ­silent cinema travelogues built on a rich tradition of pre-­cinematic forms of visual travel from the eigh­teenth and nineteenth centuries—­notably illustrated travel lectures, 360-­degree pa­noramas, and horizontally scrolling dioramas—­ that oriented viewers to seeing the world through images.15 Film historians point to a number of reasons for this mutual dependence. Historically, transportation and film industries relied on each other for their growth and financial success. At the turn of the c­ entury, in order to promote their itineraries and the habit of tourism, railway companies often financed cinema travelogues.16 The mutually beneficial relationship between film and travel industries expanded throughout the twentieth ­century. Just as the newly developed railroad industry harnessed the power of the moving image to advertise its products, the growing automobile industry likewise promoted and branded itself by underwriting automobile expedition films across the globe.17 The airline industry also capitalized on the moving image as a promotional device. As early as the 1940s, Pan American World Airlines had an entire division dedicated to the production of travelogues, with its cata­log

Introduction 7

including over fifty films by the 1960s.18 This economic relationship between media and modes of transportation persists in the twenty-­first ­century, as car companies continue to underwrite travel media to market their products and airlines use in-­flight global entertainment to promote the value of cosmopolitan worldliness that is essential for their economic success.19 Beyond this mutually supportive economic relationship, numerous scholars have shown that travel and mobility are inscribed in the medium of cinema itself. From the earliest days of cinema, the experience of and attendant sociocultural shifts resultant from modern modes of transportation played a central role in shaping cinema into a machine for travel. According to Wolfgang Schivelbusch, railway travel ushered in a new perceptual paradigm as a result of the train’s “annihilation of space and time.” With the rapid pace of train travel, which radically reduced travel time, the space and time between previously distant locations dramatically shifted and contracted.20 This created the paradox of “open[ing] up new spaces that w ­ ere not as easily accessible before,” while also “destroy[ing] space, namely the space between points.”21 Schivelbusch describes ­these spatial and temporal shifts as the “shrinking of the natu­ral world,” and his work describes the radically altered consciousness and perceptions of passengers as a consequence of it.22 Seeing the world through “panoramic perception” was one of ­these consequences. According to Schivelbusch, before the development of the railroad, passengers traveling through space by h­ orse or stagecoach understood themselves to be at one with the landscape through which they traveled. With the development of the train, Schivelbusch argues that travelers no longer experi­ ere conenced themselves in harmony with the landscape.23 Instead, trains w sidered “projectiles” careening through space while passengers ­were understood as “parcels.”24 As a result, passengers’ perceptual experience of the landscape reshaped into a series of mobile and shifting repre­sen­ta­tions mediated by the win­dow.25 According to Lynne Kirby, this perceptual shift enabled by the train’s annihilation of space and time and panoramic perception was mirrored in cinema and prepared spectators for its capabilities as a mode of transportation. Like the train, the moving image’s contraction of space and time via editing made the world more accessible, closer, and navigable.26 Like the train passenger, the cinema spectator experienced the fundamental paradox of sitting still while moving—­physically or metaphorically—­through a unique configuration of space and time.27 Cinema’s ability to serve as a travel machine was also materially dependent on machine age technology. Karen Beckman points out that “the camera’s ability to move relied largely on a parasitic relationship with transportation

8

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

technologies.”28 Indeed, one of the most common techniques of cinematography in early travelogues was the “phantom r­ ide,” where a camera was placed on the front of a moving vehicle. In turn, early filmmakers drew on the concepts and experience of modern travel to showcase and shape the new mobile possibilities of cinema technology. Jon Gartenberg’s study of cinematography in early American cinema reveals the frequency with which camera movement, such as pans, dollies, and traveling shots, was used to depict passengers entering or departing cars, trains, and trolleys.29 And Beckman’s work on the prevalence of car crashes in early cinema demonstrates how, despite being represented through static camera work, they became a way for filmmakers to discover the possibilities of the new art form, including the screen’s vertical dimensionality and the axis between the audience and the image.30 It should come as no surprise, then, that, as Jeffrey Ruoff reminds us, travel is intrinsic to the language of cinema itself, being “consonant with common parlances such as the traveling shot and motion picture.”31 Perhaps ­there is no greater example of the per­sis­tence of this intertwined relationship than the dependence of widescreen cinema formats, such as Cinerama (along with other midcentury widescreen technological developments) and IMAX, on ideas and technologies of travel and transportation. Alison Griffiths points out that both widescreen formats drew inspiration from early cinema travelogues, a fact that can be easily gleaned from their respective cata­logs of films; Cinerama’s first five films ­were travel films, and, as Griffiths argues, IMAX continues to rely on travelogues as “its key structuring princi­ple.”32 Indeed, she points out that “to characterize IMAX as virtual travel or armchair tourism is something of a truism t­ oday”; it is a theme that is central to its publicity, media reviews, and audience expectations.33 Though Griffiths’s valuable work on t­ hese technologies reminds us that each stemmed from dif­fer­ent aesthetic and industrial contexts, it also shows that in addition to their generic similarities as travelogues, the “semantics of travel imbues them both.”34 This is primarily through their attempt to provide virtual travel through immersive spectatorship, what Griffiths characterizes as an embodied “sense of being pre­sent in the scene.”35 This illusion of embodiment is created by cinematography and screen dimensions that collapse the distance between the mise-­en-­scène and the spectator and thus activate an embodied sensation in relation to the image.36 As a form of virtual travel, this embodied sensation in both Cinerama and IMAX is most often felt in relation to movement; both heavi­ly rely on the phantom r­ ide camera technique pop­u­lar­ized in early travelogues as a defining feature of their visual grammar. According to Lauren Rabinovitz, the central feature of the phantom ­ride film

Introduction 9

is its attempt to “emphasize the spectator’s body itself as the center of an environment of action and excitement.”37 Indeed, Sara Ross highlights Cinerama’s consistent use of aerial cinematography and point-­of-­view shots to give audiences the illusion of soaring through the sky.38 In turn, Griffiths argues that IMAX’s frequent use of high-­altitude phantom r­ ide camera work attempts to offer the viewer an embodied sense of penetrating and conquering space.39 Cinema’s per­sis­tent combination of the aerial shot with phantom r­ide point-­of-­view cinematography reveals just how essential aviation technology has been to the development of film’s visual lexicon, mobile capabilities, and surrogacy for travel. Stephen Groening argues that, on the one hand, flying through the air is consonant with the distinct perceptual and bodily sensations initiated by ­earlier modes of transportation and experienced through cinema, including the contraction of space and time and the contradictory notion of simultaneous motion and stasis.40 On the other hand, he argues that the view from the airplane offered a new vertical way of seeing the world that enhanced the experience of panoramic perception and broadened the definition of the panoramic view. While aerial views w ­ ere first experienced in the nineteenth c­ entury through hot air balloon excursions and the many pa­noramas that mimicked their views and sensation, it was with the development of modern aviation technology that the aerial view found its ultimate expression and meanings.41 Groening suggests that the aerial view turned the atmosphere into landscape, a landscape that can be seen in numerous ways: obliquely out the win­dow or media screen, as an all-­encompassing view from the plane’s seemingly omniscient perspective, remediated through in-­flight screen technology that reproduces the view from the cockpit, or reproduced through in-­flight travelogue entertainment.42 As the history above suggests, this is an extension and deepening of virtual travel’s enduring enterprise of making ­every part of the globe accessible. This is a proj­ect that continues in the digital era; Google Earth’s Voyager feature boasts a 3D tool that enables users to see “any place from any a­ ngle,” leaving no part of the earth unavailable for virtual travel.43 Significantly, it is also a proj­ect that accustomed moviegoers to consuming global mobility as a form of repre­sen­ta­tion and entertainment.44 Indeed, Jennifer Lynn Peterson argues that, in the early twentieth c­ entury, “one would have been more likely to envision travel as a series of repre­sen­ta­tions of faraway places familiar from photo­graphs, postcards, and moving pictures than as ­actual tourism.”45 As Tom Gunning argues, this phenomenon of repre­sen­ta­tional travel not only results in the development of the cinematic armchair traveler, who sees images as a form of ersatz travel, but also permanently stitches travel

10

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

and image making together such that “images penetrate deeply into the pro­ cess of travel itself, structuring our experience of the journey.”46 This structuring occurs in multidirectional ways: images stimulate viewers to travel, images shape itineraries and expectations, and images provide evidence of the journey. Image making can also serve as the raison d’être for traveling. Gunning notes, “In the modern era the very concept of travel becomes intricately bound up with the production of images.”47 This means that, in addition to accustoming moviegoers to consume global mobility as a form of repre­sen­ta­ tion and entertainment, the symbiosis between cinema and travel also accustomed travelers to produce their own repre­sen­ta­tions of global mobility. This was true even before the arrival of the moving image. As Nancy Martha West details, as early as 1881 Kodak’s advertising of its amateur cameras taught consumers that taking photo­graphs is essential to travel.48 This credo has deepened over time alongside the development of new consumer visual technologies, from 16 mm cameras and camcorders to cell phones and GoPro digital cameras. The u­ nion between travel and image taking is now so deeply entrenched that the former is practically inconceivable without the latter.

The Tourist Gaze At the center of all ­these practices of mediated travel, from the mobility conferred by panoramic perception and phantom rides’ immersive spectatorship to the foreign landscapes of amateur and professional travelogues, is the act of looking and its concomitant point of view. As many scholars have argued, since the cinematic travelogue’s emergence, its point of view has been decidedly that of the tourist. Jennifer Lynn Peterson points out that despite travelogues’ development alongside a period of considerable migration to the United States, and in spite of the fact that immigrants made up a significant number of early cinema’s audience, rather than place viewers in the position of mi­grants, early travelogues primarily “confer a tourist point of view on their spectators.”49 Given that leisure travel in the early twentieth ­century was still associated with upward mobility and elite tastes—­despite it being more accessible than ever—­Peterson argues that the travelogue’s adoption of the tourist point of view helped raise the cultural prestige of the genre; it staved off reformers who saw movies as “cheap amusements” in need of a moral face-­lift, and it provided cultural capital to its viewers, who could harness the reputable status of the tourist point of view virtually.50

Introduction 11

As cinema’s first repre­sen­ta­tions of travel, early travelogues (themselves influenced by precinematic forms of visual travel privileging a tourist perspective) thus tutored Western audiences and producers in the contours and particulars of the cinematic tourist point of view. A mode of film whose “excessive form of looking is one of [its] most significant stylistic dimensions,” the early travelogue opened up distant spaces to vision and outlined where to look and who and what to see. And they did so, Peterson further reminds us, in a decidedly nonneutral fashion; the tourist point of view, she argues, “carries with it a ­great deal of ideological baggage about geography, gender, and race.”51 Ellen Strain calls this ideological perspective of the real and imaginary traveler “the tourist gaze,” a phrase first used by the sociologist John Urry that Strain expands in order to analyze its mediated function and training beyond ­actual tourist experiences. Strain places the tourist gaze’s origin and growth in the nexus of classical anthropology, colonialism, capitalism, tourism, and visual culture in the nineteenth ­century: “The ascendancy of touristic viewing took place against a background of unpre­ce­dented Western contact with the so-­called margins of the earth. In the de­cades before the close of the nineteenth ­century, missionaries, surveyors, explorers, anthropologists, and colonialists vowed to fill in the few remaining blank spots on world maps and to close up the larger gaps in knowledge of the globe’s vari­ ous inhabitants.”52 Strain states that ­these explorations not only carved open ­these newly explored lands for leisure travel but also cemented the belief that the world is a pleas­ur­able spectacle available for the Western tourist’s consumption and gaze.53 To manage the anxiety attendant to encounters with the unknown, she argues that the touristic worldview required “objectifying strategies” that would enable plea­sure rather than discomfort in cultural difference.54 Strategies of the tourist gaze and its apparatus include “reduction to surface spectacle; mystification; assimilation to Western structures of aesthetics; narrative, or scientific explanation; reduction to a simplistic surface/depth model demanding unveiling; totalization; essentialization; and synechdochic consumption, accumulation, and repre­sen­ta­tion.”55 Th ­ ese strategies help the real or virtual tourist occupy a position of “distanced immersion,” which fulfills the desire to be fully immersed in a foreign culture while having enough of a separation to guarantee visual command of and physical refuge from cultural difference.56 The tourist gaze, and its utility as a guarantor of clear cultural hierarchies and bound­aries, is found everywhere in travel films throughout the twentieth ­century. Tom Gunning finds the foreign view to be tantamount to the colonial

12

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

view in early cinema, and Peterson’s close reading of early travelogues shows the precise cinematic operations that produce this equivalence.57 Early travelogues regularly feature “exotic visual delights” such as “native types” and orientalist repre­sen­ta­tion; a reliance on the “picturesque” to aesthetically reduce and soothe the complexities of unfamiliar locations; the “trope of disappearance” that places regions, p­ eople, landscapes, and artistic traditions and cultural per­for­mances outside modernity and thus distinct from the modern figure of the tourist; foreign lands as undiscovered and thus available for both tourism and settlement; and the presence of the visual apparatus—­ from the tourists’ binoculars to their still or moving cameras—­indicating that visualization of the Other is a tourist’s birthright.58 ­These strategies appear across the range of ­silent travelogues and provide the foundation for l­ater travelogues in the classical Hollywood era. In turn, ­these strategies merged with the unique characteristics of specific genres to expand the scope of the tourist gaze. For example, ­under the auspice of educational value, travelogues operating u­ nder the sign of safari, ethnographic, exploration, or jungle film offer a more salacious ele­ment to the tourist gaze: sex and vio­lence. Typically in the form of partially nude figures, hunting scenes, animal fights, and staged atavistic vio­lence, ­these themes appear across travelogues produced by amateur filmmakers, hunters, scientists, missionaries, and popu­lar and academic anthropologists. The low cost and the popularity of t­ hese expedition films also laid the foundation for Hollywood’s narrative cooptation of t­ hese films between the 1930s and 1950s.59 Films of this type, such as Trader Horn (W. S. Van Dyke, 1931) and Jungle Headhunters (Lewis Cotlow, 1950), taught viewers to regard “undiscovered” regions as ripe for literal and figurative unveiling and to equate certain cultures with something to be tamed.60 In turn, travelogues could also be harnessed to showcase the geographic majesty, cultural superiority, technological prowess, and military might of the Western world, pointing the tourist gaze inward. Scholars such as John Belton and Kevin W. Martin point to the nationalist tone of Cinerama travelogues and their role as “soft power” propaganda during the Cold War. Though Cinerama travelogues showcased foreign destinations (primarily well-­known Eu­ro­pean sites) in similarly picturesque and exotic fashions as their travelogue pre­de­ces­sors, they also turned their lens on American soil, intentionally showcasing Amer­i­ca’s natu­ral won­ders, symbolic monuments, and symbols of U.S. prosperity and might to audiences at home and abroad.61 The per­sis­tence of the tourist gaze in Cinerama’s widescreen con­temporary successor—­IMAX—­demonstrates just how resilient the ideological infrastructure of the tourist gaze is.62 Alison Griffiths’s work demonstrates that

Introduction 13

IMAX films are replete with “nationalistic fervor” and “neo-­imperialist overtones.”63 Indeed, as Stephen Groening points out, the aerial view, which IMAX relies on, is linked to globalization’s aspirational and unevenly consequential proj­ect of shrinking and unlocking the globe. By offering ­those with access to the aerial view’s vantage point an “apparent mastery of space and time, in which the dimensions so crucial to existing in the ­here and now become malleable and unsettled,” the aesthetics from the airplane imagine a “borderless world: a permanently accessible and available world traversable by the ­passenger/viewer.”64 Though Ellen Strain concedes that the con­temporary tourist gaze now occasionally includes an awareness of its biased under­pinnings, she argues that “American culture remains indelibly marked by a more naive tradition of cross cultural contact,” which continues to be “­shaped by romanticized travel tropes of the past.”65 Despite a greater awareness of the tropes that fuel the tourist gaze, “tales of discovery, first contact, and individual adventure in virgin landscapes are more frenzied and desperate, pulling out all the stops in the technological simulation of exotic worlds.”66 The genres of romance and adventure offer clear examples of how the travelogue tropes first presented in early cinema laid the foundation for commercial travel narratives. In the midcentury, films about Americans traveling to Eu­rope, such as Three Coins in the ­ ere Fountain ( Jean Negulesco, 1954) and Summertime (David Lean, 1955), w staples of American cinema. As Robert R. Shandley details, the American in ­these films is “usually young, naïve, and female,” and, against the backdrop of the beauty, monuments, and quaint old-­world ­people of Eu­rope, she embarks on a journey of “sexual awakening and self-­discovery.”67 The travel tropes driving t­ hese narratives are widely replicated in con­temporary films. Popu­lar films such as Eat, Pray, Love (Ryan Murphy, 2010) and ­Under the Tuscan Sun (Audrey Wells, 2003) reproduce their same tropes of sexual awakening and self-­discovery through foreign encounters, as well as feature the travelogue conventions of native types, disappearing cultures, and the picturesque. In turn, tropes of undiscovered lands, au­then­tic cultures, and conquest are updated in con­temporary culinary adventure tele­vi­sion such as Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern (The Travel Channel, 2006–) and Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown (CNN, 2013–2018).68 Even as ­these examples emphasize the historical and cultural endurance of the Western tourist gaze, Ellen Strain argues that it is not a “single, unchanging entity” and that a “wide range of determinants . . . ​shape the nature of any single instance of [it].” In addition to tourist gaze being ­shaped by distinct visual apparatuses, she points to shifts in national consciousness, alternate

14

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

personal visions, and the dynamic between the tourist gaze and the subject of it as impor­tant determinants for its contours.69 A more specific and comprehensive list, by no means exhaustive, might also include historical time period and location; race, gender, class, sexuality, nationality, and age; solo, ­family, or communal travel; novice or experienced traveler; travel identity (e.g., cosmopolitan, backpacker, culinary adventurer); packaged or individualized itinerary; foreign language fa­cil­it­y; shifting ideologies around travel; and po­liti­cal and global awareness. This complexity of the tourist gaze also extends to its virtual applications. The mediated tourist gaze is likewise ­shaped by a long list of determinants, including but not l­imited to the virtual traveler’s race, gender, class, sexuality, nationality, and age; the nature of the visual apparatus and mode of viewing; consumption or production of travel imagery; travel imagery in the context of genre and storytelling; shifting ideologies about travel; degree of consciousness of travel tropes and level of visual literacy; and the relationship between the repre­sen­ta­tional place and its real counterpart for the viewer. Thus, while scholarship on the tourist point of view reveals an ideological baseline that is deep rooted and tenacious, its par­ tic­u­lar contours and direction are ­shaped by a broad range of f­ actors.

The Study Abroad Gaze Attentive to ­these specificities, Documenting the American Student Abroad contributes to an exploration of the tourist gaze by focusing on its relationship to one kind of conceptual, virtual, and corporeal traveler: the American study abroad student. This is a category of traveler that comprises a small but symbolically significant number of Americans who travel across the globe annually. According to Ross Lewin, “More than half of all high school se­niors express a strong desire to study abroad in college.”70 According to the Open Doors® Report on International Educational Exchange, one in ten undergraduates in the United States ­will study abroad in some capacity. In the 2017–2018 academic year, 341,751 American students studied abroad for credit, with an additional 38,401 students traveling abroad for noncredit work, internships, or volunteer proj­ects. The majority of t­ hese students identify as white, with only 30  ­percent identifying as minorities.71 Th ­ ese students study abroad through international education vendors, through home institutions in “island programs,” or via direct enrollment in universities across the globe. Abroad, they live in dorms, homestays, apartments, and university enclaves for international students. In addition to academics, American students go on group

Introduction 15

tours, perform community ser­vice, and volunteer; they make friends with locals, isolate with fellow Americans, or mix with international students; they travel through Eu­rope on weekends via trains, buses, and ridesharing; they party, have sex, and form relationships; they eat local cuisine or stick to recognizably global foods; and, unlike their pre–­digital era pre­de­ces­sors, they stay in close contact with f­amily and friends through social media and consume familiar popu­lar culture through transnational media flows. As with leisure tourists, the interconnection of travel and its repre­sen­ta­ tions shapes the lens through which ­these students and their advocates view their travels. But the study abroad gaze is additionally ­shaped by the discourses of study abroad and international education, which are circumscribed by a distinct set of beliefs. The first is that study abroad is a form of travel distinct from mere tourism. This distinction is not isolated to study abroad; the supposed differences between “the tourist” and “the traveler” have long been the subject of g­ reat scrutiny in the humanities, social sciences, and travel writing. In his much-­cited introduction to The Norton Book of Travel, Paul Fussell derides the tourist as someone who “learn[s] exchange rates and where to go in Paris for the best hamburgers.” In contrast, he glorifies the traveler as someone who in “sens[ing] a world dif­fer­ent from their own . . . ​realize[s] their provincialism and recognize[s] their ignorance.”72 As Ellen Strain points out, this is a specious distinction that exposes its own class elitism: the traveler is often posited as someone who “seeks and knows how to recognize authenticity,” whereas the tourist is regarded as someone who “gladly or unknowingly accepts Disneyland’s versions of the world’s won­ders.”73 This ste­reo­type of the tourist is well entrenched in popu­lar culture; repre­sen­ta­tions of obnoxious and unworldly tourists are ubiquitous. Indeed, contempt for the figure of the tourist is so well ingrained that, as Sarika Chandra notes, “even tourists themselves do not like to identify themselves as belonging to this group.” Thus, the tourism industry is constantly trying to “resuscitate itself by appearing to be travel,” marketing itself through the ideas of “newness, adventure, [and] the exotic” that have long typified the more exclusive definitions of the traveler.74 Even as scholars such as ­these point to the hollowness of the distinction between tourists and travelers, what Ellen Strain calls the “travel mythos” of anti-­tourism remains central to the ethos of study abroad.75 Whereas the connotations of leisure travel often revolve around some combination of personal and communal gratification (e.g., ­family vacations, bachelorette parties), consumption (e.g., of nature, of culture), and surface engagement with the host culture (e.g., cruise ship travel, group tours), travel for study abroad

16

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

is exalted by its stakeholders as nothing short of globally and personally transformative. Study abroad rhe­toric is riddled with claims about the ability of immersive engagement in a foreign country to foster meaningful intercultural communication and understanding, a sense of global competence and citizenry, and transformative personal experiences. Study abroad is something greater, the rhe­toric boldly proclaims, than a touristic endeavor. As many critical perspectives on study abroad reveal, such claims are largely unsubstantiated. Numerous scholars point out that the data that supports such beliefs is woefully inadequate, the terminology on which ­these beliefs rest vaguely defined, the pathway for students to achieve t­hese transformations, as well as their desire to do so, unclear, and the messaging about ­these values counterproductive.76 Moreover, despite the value of many of the goals of study abroad, such as intercultural understanding and personal transformation, ­others, such as global competence and citizenship, remain ill defined at best and troubled by foreign policy agendas and the maintenance of global in­equality at worst.77 Colin Wright and David Jefferess remind us that, while global citizenship is an “empty gesture,” a meaningless category with no po­liti­cal or ­legal backing that would enable full “participation and inclusion, rights and responsibilities” in global arenas, global citizenship educational practices and discourses often suggest other­wise, encouraging students to claim ­these privileges as their moral obligation.78 Indeed, Nigel Dower writes that the concept of global citizenship is “premised on the belief that agents have global responsibilities to help make a better world and that they are part of large-­scale networks of concern.”79 Unfortunately, as Talya Zemach-­Bersin argues, this sense of responsibility to the world has often manifested through neo­co­lo­nial­ist worldviews and practices. Her trenchant critique of global citizenship discourses in study abroad shows how this identity “is often ­imagined and described in explic­itly nationalist terms,” which “draw from and perpetuate, rather than challenge or critique, fantasies of U.S. supremacy, entitlement, and global expansion.” This translates, she argues, into American students assuming it is their natu­ral right and obligation to traverse, consume, and better the world.80 Yet, despite t­ hese and many other critiques of what Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart call the field’s “unquestioned dogmas,” ­these beliefs continue to remain some of its “most trusted assumptions.”81 In one variation or another, and with dif­fer­ent connotations, unsubstantiated promises of global citizenship, global competence, personal transformation, and intercultural skills work their way into the mission statements and marketing strategies of most university study abroad programs, international education organ­izations, and study abroad vendors, as well as into the promotional material

Introduction 17

about international education produced by the U.S. Departments of State and Education. The point ­here in drawing attention to the pervasiveness of ­these goals in study abroad rhe­toric is not to reject the potential value of study abroad as a fertile space for personal and intercultural transformation. Though I neither believe it is a sine qua non for a successful college education nor a magic bullet for world peace, like many who regularly advise students to study abroad, I believe that ­under the right conditions and at the right time study abroad has the potential to transform parochial perspectives into progressive and empathetic worldviews, as well as the capacity to help students learn how to, in the parlance of the day, “adult.” Nor is my critique of study abroad rhe­toric intended to negate the possibility of educational practices that work t­ oward dismantling uncritical notions of global identity. Rather, my focus on study abroad rhe­toric is to point to the fact that the study abroad travel experience is already framed and predetermined for American students before they ever leave the country—­indeed, even if they never leave the country at all. Given the established relationship between visual culture and travel detailed in the first part of this introduction, it should come as no surprise that media is central to this framing. Sarah C. Bishop and Zemach-­Bersin each point to this in separate essays on study abroad advertising. Bishop argues that the online rhe­toric used in study abroad websites and blogs plays a central role in framing students’ expectations of their time abroad, in directing how they understand themselves in relation to the host culture, and in shaping how they publicly reflect on their study abroad experiences. She argues that while students have real and valid study abroad experiences, their “experience is anticipated, situated, and mediated in a way that is too often ignored.”82 Likewise, Zemach-­ Bersin maintains that by the time students choose their study abroad destination, “they have both unconsciously and consciously been absorbing the images and rhe­toric of international education and advertisements for years.”83 Collectively, their research shows how the study abroad experience can be s­ haped by a j­umble of ideologically competing visual and verbal rhe­toric, where promises of global citizenship and au­then­tic immersion sit alongside images of touristic fun, uncritical mobility, and a culturally homogenous and passive world available for American consumption. Both call on the field to develop a more critical visual language for advertising and to recognize, in the words of Bishop, that “the rhe­toric surrounding the study abroad experience should not be conceived as existing outside of or around the traveling experience, but rather within it, as part of the experience itself.”84 ­These scholars’ claims are, of course, another way of highlighting the intrinsic relationship of media to travel.

18

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Itinerary and Method of Transportation With a broader scope and set of questions, as well as a dif­fer­ent conceptual foundation and methodological approach, Documenting the American Student Abroad considerably expands this conversation about the mediation of study abroad. Specifically, the book examines the ways in which key practices, values, and concerns of study abroad are officially and unofficially engaged in the numerous practices of useful media. ­These include the online promotion and presence of study abroad (chapter 1), the development of “intercultural” skills (chapter 2), the highly vaunted foreign “homestay” experience (chapter  3), diversity in study abroad (chapter  4), calls for “global citizenship” (chapter 5), and safety and risk abroad (chapter 6). Though ­these are by no means the only goals or values of the study abroad field, they are representative of some of its most topical, hence their inclusion in this book. By looking at how useful media in a variety of documentary modes speaks to and frames ­these goals and concerns, Documenting the American Student Abroad reveals how media plays a central role in shaping the field of study abroad itself. This is particularly impor­tant to parse ­because the media culture of study abroad often belies—­intentionally in some places and inadvertently in o­ thers—­the very rhe­toric and goals it seeks to promote and support. In d­ oing so, it demonstrates how the institutional goals for and messaging of useful media may become incoherent, diluted, and transformed when practiced by multiple stakeholders. While this diversity of messaging has the capability of opening up new visions for study abroad, as the media culture of study abroad reveals, ­there is no guarantee ­these visions and ave­nues w ­ ill serve the institutions whose flag they wave. The first two chapters of the book focus on the consequences of the industry’s use of specific documentary modes to market its products and values. In chapter  1, “The Personal Is Professional: First-­Person Travelogues and the Study Abroad Video Contest,” I focus on the now ubiquitous “study abroad video contest” and online film festival. From for-­profit organ­izations and university study abroad centers to national professional organ­izations, numerous study abroad stakeholders promote video contests in which student travelers can submit their study abroad–­themed videos online, win awards, and showcase their work through officially sponsored websites. Through the f­ ree ­labor of affectively driven student volunteers, ­these contests offer organ­izations ready-­made forms of useful media, presenting prospective student travelers with industry-­approved visions of what it means to study abroad. This chapter takes an in-­depth look at t­ hese industry-­backed visions of study abroad.

Introduction 19

Through an analy­sis of their contest rhe­toric, submission rules, and winning videos, the chapter demonstrates how, as a result of the study abroad industry’s lack of and inattention to media literacy, student filmmakers and the industry unwittingly collaborate in the production of a study abroad gaze that belies institutional rhe­toric, inveterate beliefs, and aspirational goals. In par­tic­u­lar, the chapter argues that the industry’s endorsement of hoary first-­ person travelogue techniques invites students to advance notions of the world as culturally homogenous, easily traversable, and available for personal consumption, adventure, and fulfillment—­the opposite of the kind of global worldview it hopes to cultivate. The award-­worthy study abroad video thus undermines the merit and legitimacy of the very industry it hopes to serve. In ­doing so, the study abroad video contest demonstrates the dilemma of useful media that is deployed without an understanding of the repre­sen­ta­tional terrain in which it traffics. Chapter  2, “Intercultural Communication among ‘Intimate Strangers’: Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and Documentary Study Abroad,” looks at how two educational documentaries about study abroad, Crossing Borders (2009) and The Dialogue (2013), draw on real­ity tele­vi­sion rhe­toric and beliefs to shape their vision of study abroad and intercultural excellence. In par­tic­u­lar, Crossing Borders and The Dialogue model themselves on real­ity tele­v i­sion’s house-­sharing, “intimate strangers” model, in which ­people from dif­fer­ent backgrounds are placed together in close and pressure-­inducing living quarters for a sustained period of time. As a result of their adoption of this common real­ity tele­vi­sion framework, Crossing Borders’ and The Dialogue’s mediation of intercultural communication and conflict resolution is intertwined with the logic of real­ity tele­vi­sion’s mediation of ­these same practices, which are argumentative, highly emotional, and performative. This chapter examines the consequences of this entanglement, looking at what happens when real­ity tele­vi­sion’s models of intercultural communication migrate into more thoughtful intercultural arenas through the transnational flow of real­ity tele­vi­sion formats, rhe­toric, be­hav­ ior, and expectations. The ­middle section of the book includes two chapters on how students’ mediated engagement with study abroad is often in conflict with official institutional discourses and practices. In chapter 3, “House Hunters International: Homestay Movies in the Digital Era,” I look at how three discourses—­the study abroad rhe­toric of the homestay experience, the conventional yet shifting vernacular of home movies, and repre­sen­ta­tions of domestic space in home and real estate lifestyle television—­intersect in what I call the study abroad “homestay movie.” Produced by both students and study abroad vendors,

20

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

homestay movies exist in g­ reat numbers on the internet and build on the amateur media tradition of documenting domestic rituals and experiences, but ­here with a focus on the host f­amily home. This chapter demonstrates that, depending on which stakeholder is ­behind the camera—­study abroad vendor or student traveler—­homestay movies express dramatically dif­fer­ent registers of home and ­family. Yet, despite their differences, both vendor and student homestay movies draw on similar appeals. In par­tic­ul­ar, even as foreign homestays are championed by study abroad stakeholders based on the belief that cultural immersion and its emphasis on separation from home culture and ­family ­will foster greater learning, visual repre­sen­ta­tions of homestays paradoxically work to narrow the gap between homestay and home of origin. In spite of its camera trained on a foreign home, homestay movies are more about connecting students homeward than orienting students abroad. Chapter 4, “Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem: Vlogs as Necessary Media,” addresses one of the field’s most pressing concerns—­study abroad’s lack of diversity among student travelers. It is now well known that the typical study abroad student is white, m ­ iddle class, female, and able-­bodied. This has caused much hand-­wringing in the field, spurring institutional initiatives to make study abroad more inclusive to minority, disabled, and poor students. Given that black and African American identified students are one of the least likely racial groups to study abroad—­second only to American Indian or Alaskan Native students—­efforts to increase this par­tic­u­lar student population are central to ­these initiatives and conversations.85 However, the slowness and inconsistency of institutional attention to student diversity mean that ­these efforts have not broadly infiltrated study abroad offices and informational sessions. Moreover, study abroad’s discursive framework around diversity, which defines minority students—­particularly black students—in terms of their nonexistence and lack, has ­limited the ability of the field to change the profile of the typical study abroad student, who remains white both in number and in the cultural imaginary. In this chapter, then, I examine the specific ways in which students who identify as black and/or African American use vlogs to perform the identity of student travelers, thereby inserting themselves into a field that inadvertently negates their existence. The final two chapters of the book focus on study abroad cautionary tales told through the docudramatic form. Unsurprisingly, ­these cautionary tales are produced neither by study abroad vendors nor by academic institutions, both of which have an economic interest in minimizing attention to risk, but by two dramatically dif­fer­ent stakeholders in the institution of study abroad. Chapter 5, “Spy Kids: The Consequences of Global Citizenship in Game of

Introduction 21

Pawns,” focuses on a twenty-­eight-­minute docudrama produced by the Counterintelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (ONCIX). Game of Pawns (Tom Feliu, 2014) tells the real-­life story of Glenn Duffie Shriver, a young American man who, a­ fter studying and ­later living abroad in Shanghai, colluded with Chinese intelligence officers to spy against the United States. Game of Pawns dramatizes the story of Shriver’s recruitment by Chinese intelligence and ultimate capture by the FBI in 2010. Closely reading the film and its ancillary material, this chapter argues that this FBI cautionary tale reveals governmental anxiety around the relationship of student travelers to the concept of global citizenship. For study abroad advocates, global citizenship enables empathy, communication, and affinity across cultures. However, in the chary perspective of the FBI and its affiliates, global citizenship is an ideological fertilizer for divided loyalties and national betrayal. This chapter, then, reveals the tension in national discourses between the promotion of global educational exchange, on the one hand, and the globally minded philosophies, values, and practices that shape it, on the other. In ­doing so, Game of Pawns exposes the limits of the government’s support for educational practices that ask students to connect with other cultures outside of the framework of U.S. national interests. The final chapter, “Study Abroad and the Female Traveler in the ‘Amanda Knoxudramas,’ ” offers an analy­sis of the risks of study abroad through the lens of gender. By all statistical mea­sures, young ­women are the primary participants of study abroad, dramatically outnumbering men for the majority of the twentieth and twenty-­first centuries.86 Therefore, the story of study abroad—­including its representations—­has often been about ­women and travel. In this chapter, I engage with this story via the highly publicized case of Amanda Knox, who was accused, convicted, and ultimately acquitted of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher while both w ­ ere studying abroad in Italy. The chapter focuses on three docudramas about this tragedy, what I call the “Amanda Knoxudramas”: Lifetime’s movie-­of-­the-­week Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy (Robert Dornheim, 2011), the tele­vi­sion series Guilt (Freeform, 2016), and the feature film The Face of an Angel (Michael Winterbottom, 2014, UK). While this focus on mainstream media seemingly pivots the book’s general definition of study abroad media culture by including within its par­ameters analyses of commercial film and tele­vi­sion, I do so ­because Knox is surely the most infamous study abroad student in Amer­ic­ a, if not the world.87 As such, her story and her study abroad experience became of central concern not only to study abroad institutions but also to a wider

22

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

group of stakeholders, including anxious parents, outraged global media, and international parties involved in the case and its outcome. Thus, while the Knoxudramas ­under discussion in this chapter ­were produced as commercial entertainment, I suggest the context of and catalyst for their production w ­ ere ­imagined national and global communities concerned about the risks of studying abroad, particularly for young w ­ omen. Of specific concern in this chapter is what both the “headline” docudramatic form and female travelogue tropes bring to the fore regarding the experiences of young, sexually adventurous ­women studying abroad. A reading of the Knoxudramas through ­these lenses demonstrates that, even when stripped of the framework of murder and criminality, w ­ omen abroad are regarded as both vulnerable to and agents of trou­ble. This is a long-­standing cultural message for female travelers that, in the contexts of study abroad and the headline docudrama, becomes a cautionary tale not just to students and their parents but also to the institution of study abroad. This final chapter of Documenting the American Student Abroad, then, suggests that the useful media other­wise explored in this book does not exist in a vacuum, operating alongside and informed by the external forces that likewise work to shape it. What should be clear from this chapter breakdown is the diversity of stakeholders involved in crafting repre­sen­ta­tions of student global engagement. Given this diversity, it is no surprise that the meaning of global engagement varies dramatically across stakeholder media. As outlined above, each set of media reveals a distinct vision of who the globally engaged student is—­from what they look like and what they look at to how they should (and should not) comport themselves in the global arena. Occasionally the distinct stories converge. But more often ­these visions are at cross-­purposes, revealing a lack of consensus among stakeholders on the meaning of global engagement and its north star of citizenship-­cum-­competence. Instead, ­these ideals and practices are revealed to be constructed categories given ideological shape by numerous arbiters with dif­fer­ent and sometimes competing agendas. Recognizing the contours of t­ hese vari­ous shapes and unpacking their agendas are the main goals of Documenting the American Student Abroad. As ­will also become clear throughout ­these chapters, while theories of mediated travel, the discursive field of study abroad, and documentary media histories and modes are often my primary starting points or invisible guides, each chapter also avails itself of a variety of dif­fer­ent frameworks and scholarly material to better understand its subject and build its arguments. In ­doing so, this book uses the methodological approach of “discourse analy­sis,” a method of studying visual culture that, according to Gillian Rose, “pays

Introduction 23

careful attention to images, and to their social production and effects.” Instead of looking at one specific criterion or interpretative framework, this method of scholarship looks at how discourses are ­shaped at the intersection of visual culture, institutions, politics, technologies, histories, and practices. This necessitates drawing on a wide and eclectic range of source material, which Rose argues “is demanded by the intertextuality of the discourse.”88 Indeed, as Lynne Kirby suggests about her own methodological approach in Parallel Tracks: The Railroad and ­Silent Cinema, a book that also explores the relationship between travel and media, “to chart the relations between two such complex and enormous institutions . . . ​requires an expansive spirit of inquiry, one that is open to many methods of analy­sis, criticism, and historical investigation.”89 Documenting the American Student Abroad approaches its subject ­matter with this same “expansive spirit of inquiry.” I agree with Rose that “some of the most in­ter­est­ing discourse analyses are in­ter­est­ing precisely ­because they bring together, in convincing ways, material that had previously been seen as quite unrelated.”90 In merging study abroad with media studies, the goal of this book is to do just this.

Useful Scholarship Loyal critics of study abroad argue that in order for study abroad to pro­gress, it needs to open itself up to new lines of inquiry and new approaches from outside the field itself.91 By focusing on the media cultures of study abroad through the lens of documentary studies, theories of mediated travel, and visual and discourse analyses, Documenting the American Student Abroad: The Media Cultures of International Education does precisely this, offering an innovative way to understand study abroad. As Julie M. Ficarra points out, scholarship on study abroad is currently split between social scientific studies that focus on students’ experience and growth, on the one hand, and “best practice” studies that focus on program design, assessment, and policy, on the other.92 In the field of study abroad, humanist inquiry is scant.93 As study abroad prac­ti­tion­ers and students increase their engagement with moving images and digital environments, the insights of media scholars are critical to helping the field understand how the interaction between visual culture and study abroad rhe­toric shapes rather than conforms to the field’s central practices and public perception. Understanding the varying dimensions, consequences, and possibilities of mediation is necessary if the field wants to better understand the relationship among its rhe­toric, practices, and student experiences.

24

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

As Zemach-­Bersin points out, “Study abroad as a technology of knowledge production, citizenship education and cultural diplomacy has enjoyed a profoundly uncontested status.” The result of this has been “to not only shield the politics of study abroad from sustained academic critique, but to mystify, dehistoricize, depoliticize, aestheticize and individualize the experience” for students.94 It is my hope, then, that in addition to contributing to film and media studies by offering an in­ter­est­ing approach to and expanding the category of useful media, the following chapters on the politics of study abroad images ­will also be useful to the very ­people who need it the most—­stakeholders in the institution of study abroad. As the humanities are increasingly derided as impractical and irrelevant, this book works to show just how necessary humanist inquiry is for conducting our professional and personal lives. ­There is much territory to explore beyond the scope of this book, especially as it is ­limited to the documentary culture of Americans studying abroad. Far more international students come to the United States than American students leave to study abroad; in the 2018–2019 academic year, over one million international students came to study at American universities.95 Moreover, their cultural identity in the United States is burdened with dif­fer­ent histories, politics, and ideologies from ­those of their U.S. counter­parts who travel abroad for dif­fer­ent reasons and with far greater freedom. International students also study in many places across the globe beyond the United States. The useful media produced by, for, and about international students coming to Amer­i­ca or elsewhere w ­ ill invariably pose a dif­fer­ent set of questions depending on its country of origin, host country, identity of producer, and international education affiliation.96 Additionally, Hollywood repre­sen­ta­tions of foreign exchange students in Amer­i­ca are ripe for analy­sis. From the seductive Eu­ro­pean female to the comical male student of color, the heavi­ly ste­reo­typed foreign exchange student is a stock character in U.S. film and tele­vi­sion.97 Thus, the visual cultures of international students in the United States or elsewhere eagerly await the attention of another scholar.98 However, while the media culture of ­these students is not the focus of this book, I hope it ­will provide a foundation and a road map for ­future explorations. Fi­nally, as it describes the heterogeneous authorship, multimedial composition, and varied exhibition contexts of study abroad media, Documenting the American Student Abroad works to expand precisely what we understand as a visual and media culture, a notion that is mirrored by my strategic interchange of ­these terms throughout the introduction. Just as one of the values of study abroad is to encourage better intercultural communication by fostering open dialogue about and mutual re­spect for cultural connections and differences,

Introduction 25

this book seeks to foster better understanding of the connections and differences between seemingly incongruent mediums, visual modes, institutions, producers, and screening contexts. I agree with Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren’s assertion that “as the historic divisions between media products, industries, audiences, and cultures become less and less recognizable, ­there are new opportunities to unite what have often been disconnected conversations.”99 Like study abroad, this book uses cultural immersion as the best guide for ­doing so. For ­those willing to spend the time to open themselves up to new ways of understanding the mediated world, the next six chapters offer a deep engagement with the multifaceted media cultures of study abroad.

1 ◆ THE PERSONAL IS PROFESSIONAL First-­Person Travelogues and the Study Abroad Video Contest

The theme of a recent study abroad conference offers insight into the challenges and opportunities currently facing study abroad professionals and organ­izations. “Born Digital: Embracing Technology to Enhance International Education,” held in Austin, Texas, in 2017 gathered together study abroad stakeholders—­vendors, professionals, and university representatives— to share information about digital technology’s considerable role in students’ lives and, in turn, the necessity for expanding its presence within study abroad practices. Though enhancing experiential learning and global learning outcomes ­were central goals of the conference, the economic imperatives of this conversation si­mul­ta­neously reveal themselves in the conference website’s description, which also outlined “harness[ing] the power of technology” to improve recruitment.1 It is in this discursive, economic, and technological context that the study abroad video contest and accompanying online film festival have become ubiquitous features of the study abroad industry, serving as a form of useful media par­tic­u­lar to the digital age. From for-­profit organ­izations and university study abroad centers to national professional organ­izations, numerous stakeholders now promote video contests in which student travelers can submit their study abroad–­themed videos online, win awards accompanied by cash

26



The Personal Is Professional 27

and gift prizes, and showcase their work through officially sponsored websites. Study abroad video contests include the Study Abroad Film Festival of the Institute for the International Education of Students (IES), the Student Video Contest of International Studies Abroad (ISA), the Cultural Experiences Abroad (CEA) Study Abroad Video Contest the Student Diplomat Video Contest of NAFSA: Association of International Educators and Connecting Our World, the Video Contest of the American Council for International Studies (ACIS), the Capture the Culture Video Contest of the American Institute for Foreign Study (AIFS) Study Abroad, and the Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge of the Institute of International Education (IIE) and the New York Times.2 While the study abroad industry and its advocates are still trying to figure out how to develop best practices for digital technology, given the early adoption and ubiquity of video contests and film festivals among varying organ­izations, ­there would seem to be tacit consensus that this kind of programming is a particularly useful step in the right direction. Exploring a range of video contests sponsored by study abroad organ­ izations, this chapter examines the consequences of study abroad’s adoption of “award-­worthy” visions of student travel. Through an analy­sis of study abroad contest rhe­toric, submission directives, and winning videos, the chapter demonstrates how, as a result of the study abroad industry’s reliance on students’ affectively driven ­free l­abor without a concomitant attention to their media literacy, student filmmakers and the industry unwittingly collaborate in the production of a study abroad gaze that belies institutional rhe­ toric and aspirational goals. In par­tic­u­lar, the chapter argues that the industry’s endorsement of hoary first-­person travelogue techniques invites students to advance notions of the world as culturally homogenous, easily traversable, and available for personal consumption, adventure, and fulfillment. As outlined in the introduction, this is the opposite of the global worldview that the industry and its advocates hope to cultivate, which in its ideal form “encourages students to adopt a critical understanding of globalization, to reflect on how they and their nations are implicated in the local and global prob­lems and to engage in intercultural perspectives.”3 By advancing more narcissistic visions of the world, the award-­worthy study abroad video thus undermines the merit of the industry it hopes to serve, while also weakening media’s promise as a tool for creating the moral disposition necessary for global engagement. In ­doing so, the study abroad video contest demonstrates the dilemma of “useful media” that is deployed without an understanding of the repre­sen­ ta­tional terrain in which it traffics.

28

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Study Abroad’s Gift Economy ­ ere are clear reasons for the industry’s quick and widespread adoption of Th video contests. As Michael Strangelove reminds us in his study of digital media and YouTube, we are currently in the “high age of amateur video production.”4 Amateur digital media is now so common as to be seemingly unremarkable. In this new era, student travelers are among ­those groups who, with a technological fa­cil­it­ y that would seem astonishing if it w ­ ere not so commonplace, regularly use digital media to rec­ord and visually edit their experiences. That the study abroad industry would capitalize on this makes perfect sense. As Tiziana Terranova argues, f­ ree ­labor is central to the digital economy of late cap­i­tal­ist society. In order for organ­izations to draw viewers to websites, monetize their ser­vices, and maintain brand relevance, constant innovation and updated equipment are needed. This requires costly ­human ­labor and technological resources. Terranova points out that many players in the online arena have figured out that “the best website, the best way to stay vis­i­ble and thriving on the Web, is to turn [their] site into a space that is not only accessed, but somehow built by its users.”5 This business practice, known as the “gift economy,” is not unpre­ce­dented; Laurie Ouellette highlights how the popularity of the camcorder craze in the 1980s and early 1990s led the American tele­vi­sion industry to create entire programs built on the backs of amateur footage (e.g., ABC’s Amer­i­ca’s Funniest Home Videos and NBC’s I Witness Video). In the digital era, the gift economy has mushroomed, with organ­izations aggressively courting user-­generated content.6 According to Terranova, while this ­labor is voluntary rather than forced—­based on affective feelings and cultural loyalties ­toward products, brands, and ideas—it is nonetheless embedded within capitalistic structures and inequities. ­Free ­labor, she argues, is the place where “knowledgeable consumption of culture is translated into productive activities that are pleas­ur­ably embraced and at the same time often shamelessly exploited.”7 One such current form of shameless exploitation occurs when companies capitalize on ­free ­labor through “interactive advertising,” which is defined by Mark Deuze as “the paid and unpaid pre­sen­ta­tion of sponsored products, ser­vices, and ideas involving mutual action between consumers and producers.”8 Examples of interactive advertising include newspapers’ inclusion of citizen journalism on their websites, game developers’ reliance on consumers as innovators and co-­developers, and marketing departments’ deployment of consumers’ personal stories, photos, videos, and user comments on their websites and in their social media marketing.9



The Personal Is Professional 29

It is this context that produces the study abroad video contest, a form of useful media that, through the f­ ree l­abor of affectively driven student volunteers, ticks numerous boxes for the field. For seemingly l­ittle digital bandwidth, ­human resource investment, technological commitment, and financial cost, video contests of student-­produced, student-­directed, and student-­ financed work offer organ­izations ready-­made forms of publicity, presenting prospective student travelers with a carefully curated vision of what it means to study abroad. This follows the example of many corporate entities that use consumer video contests and film festivals as marketing and branding strategies, such as Foot Locker, Porsche, and AT&T.10 In turn, as concepts of “digital storytelling,” the “digital humanities,” and “visual essays” become more widespread in academia, asking students to create and submit videos of their experiences addresses some of the industry’s goals of integrating digital technology into its practices in a seemingly pedagogically sound fashion.11 The beneficial nature of the video contest also illustrates how the industry draws on the par­tic­u­lar character of prizes as fungible assets in the economy of study abroad. According to James F. En­glish, the exponential growth of the modern prize industry is “largely owing to the fact that they are the single best instrument for negotiating transactions between cultural and economic, cultural and social, or cultural and po­liti­cal capital.”12 While prizes typically are seen to benefit the recipient of the award, they also function more broadly in a mutually beneficial way, serving as assets and bestowing cultural value to ­those directly and indirectly connected to the award. He argues that this transactional relationship occurs on three axes: “social, institutional, and ideological.” Socially, awards are “competitive spectacles” that draw a number of players into their orbits beyond prize recipients. The ­people who pre­sent awards, the cities and communities that host them, the sponsors who fund them, the “celebrities” made by them, and the consumers who care about them all meet at the nexus of the award, partaking in its cultural value through vari­ ous levels of association.13 The broader stakes involved in awards are nowhere clearer than on the institutional level. According to En­glish, “The prize functions as a claim to authority and an assertion of that authority. . . . ​It provides an institutional basis for exercising, or attempting to exercise, control over the cultural economy, over the distribution of esteem and reward on a par­tic­ u­lar cultural field—­over what may be recognized as worthy of special notice.”14 This works hand in hand with the ideological function of prizes, which is to confer status on something that intrinsically has none. Together, t­ hese three intersecting arenas demonstrate our heavy cultural investment in prizes. The award makes us believe in the idea of cultural distinction, isolates the authority

30

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

of certain groups to discern and control this designation, and convinces all sorts of social actors of their potential to benefit from this mechanism of cultural legitimacy. In terms of study abroad, the video prize is an excellent instrument for endowing cultural worth and authority to the practice of study abroad, which continues to rely on lofty and aspirational rhe­toric to justify its expense, academic support, and po­liti­cal clout. While study abroad videos may have ­limited cultural value outside of personal and familial contexts, their special worthiness is legitimized through their “prize-­winning” nature. In d­ oing so, they legitimize study abroad itself. Furthermore, by offering prospective student travelers a carefully curated vision of study abroad in the form of prize-­ winning student videos, study abroad organ­izations designate not only their own product as award-­winning and special but also their authority to be able to name it as such. A ­ fter all, as En­glish argues, the history of awards is one of “bureaucratic control over the unruly fields of art,” in which nations and academies designate themselves as arbiters of artistic merit.15 Indeed, Mark Deuze suggests this is one of the under­lying reasons for the overarching ac­cep­ tance of the consumer as producer in digital capitalism: “One way that the increasing use of user-­generated content in professional media production can be seen is as an example of the global media industries’ attempts to secure, harness, and thus win back control over the circulation and consumption of culture.”16 One can see this bureaucratic power grab operating in study abroad awards. Given the internet’s presence of videos that critique as well as laud study abroad experiences, the study abroad contest works as a way to rein in an unruly field of visual discourses.17 Thus, while the increasing number of study abroad video contests may speak, on the one hand, to the industry’s collective efforts to engage and empower students’ extant experience with digital media in order to enhance global learning outcomes, the proliferation of contests and awards is, on the other hand, an attempt by individual study abroad purveyors to manage student repre­sen­ta­tions and harness the cultural authority that awards bestow, thereby signaling the worthiness of both their vision and unique programs for study abroad.

First-­Person Abroad The majority of award-­winning videos are created in the first-­person mode of documentary filmmaking. While in most contests’ par­ameters and categories for submission ­there are no specific rules against ­either fiction or less subjec-



The Personal Is Professional 31

tive modes of documentary, almost all contests signal to students that first-­ person filmmaking is valued the most. For example, while IES Abroad’s 2017 video contest suggests that students might create “a sequel to your favorite action film,” “a humorous narrative of what could happen on your study abroad,” or an “exploration of a specific topic, event, or social issue in your host city,” its three submission categories suggest it prioritizes more autobiographical material. “A Day in the Life” asks for ninety-­second videos on students’ “vibrant” and “extraordinary” daily experiences. “Documentary” invites students to submit videos on what their study abroad taught them about the world, emphasizing students’ perception as part of the story. And even the category “Creative Short,” which might reasonably be interpreted as seeking fiction as one possibility, is described as “stories of personal development and reflection, ­music videos, explorations of social issues and events in your host country, reenactments, and more,” guiding students yet again, at least partially, in the direction of stories centered on themselves.18 Even more telling, if students turn to past winners as models of what the judges are looking for, they would be guided t­ oward first-­person work, as the winners of IES Abroad’s video contests in 2015, 2016, and 2017 are created ­either entirely or partially in the autobiographical mode.19 In turn, ISA’s 2017 video contest offers a similar message to students. On the one hand, four of its six categories for submission leave plenty of opportunity for artistic freedom. “The Place I Live” seeks stories on “fairs, ceremonies, holiday cele­brations, local festivals, and other cultural activities”; “Nature’s Beauty” seeks stories on “landscapes, panoramic views and outdoor activities”; “When in Rome” seeks stories on “everyday life, activities, foods, ­people and places unique to your city”; and “The Artistic Eye” gives students “a chance to express [their] creative vision that may not fit in any of the other categories.”20 On the other hand, examples of contest winners would reasonably lead students to believe that judges place a higher premium on autobiographical endeavors.21 Indeed, even as both IES and ISA have modified their contest par­ameters over the past few years, winning and finalist videos remain in the first-­person mode.22 Regardless of the institutional steering ­toward autobiographical films, it ­isn’t surprising that first-­person filmmaking is the primary mode of runnersup, finalists, and winning videos. As I outline in the introductory chapter, the symbiosis between cinema and travel not only accustomed moviegoers to consume global mobility as a form of repre­sen­ta­tion and entertainment but also accustomed travelers to produce their own repre­sen­ta­tions of global mobility. Throughout the early and mid-­twentieth ­century, amateur filmmakers of all types—­family travelers, explorers, scientists, and missionaries—­were directly

32

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

encouraged by camera manufacturers, hobbyist manuals, professional guidebooks, and domestic magazines to film their travels.23 According to Devin Orgeron, the numerous first-­person amateur films recently unearthed by scholars reveal that, among amateur filmmakers of the twentieth ­century, “few activities w ­ ere as ‘collectible’ or as cinematographically inspiring as travel.”24 This intertwined relationship between amateur filmmakers and travel persists ­today, as travelers are now able to rec­ord and share their experiences easier than ever before. Jeffrey Geiger observes that “short tourist views, shots from trains, planes, cars and ships, videos of ­family vacations and so on, have returned with a vengeance via YouTube and other sites.” For Geiger, the multitude of travel-­related images currently circulating within con­temporary visual culture recall the travelogue’s special place in early cinema.25 This continuation of the first-­person travelogue as a central practice of amateur filmmakers is bolstered by a number of f­ actors, including what several scholars argue is the current age’s cultural obsession with self-­disclosure and confession.26 This obsession with self-­disclosure of au­then­tic selves, what Michael Renov calls “public declarations of private selves,” emerged in the late 1980s and has since become a staple of mediated identity production. When Renov called this practice one of the “defining acts of con­ temporary life,” the year was 2004; since that time, the pace of self-­disclosure within the public sphere has intensified, marked by a media ecol­ogy whose affordances encourage and provide the context for the rapid growth of first-­ person discourses and practices in the cultural arena.27 According to Peter Hughes, this new media ecology—­what he calls the “post-­broadcast” media environment—is also aligned with other cultural and po­liti­cal f­actors, including documentary media’s pivot away from objectivity and ­toward an ac­cep­tance of subjective modes, the rapid growth of real­ity tele­vi­sion, and the rise of neoliberalism’s emphasis on individualism. For Hughes, this creates a media culture that, despite its demo­cratic potential and social architecture, is highly individualistic.28 Pointing to ­these same ­factors, particularly the increased social role of digital technology and the ubiquity of real­ity tele­vi­sion, Laura Rascaroli offers an additional context for understanding the growth of first-­person discourses and practices. She argues that, in a world marked by global chaos, fragmentation, and insecurity as much as global harmony, connection, and security, the proliferation of first-­person filmmaking reflects a way to understand and cope with the anx­i­eties attendant to this global state of affairs.29 Drawing on scholars of the postmodern condition, Rascaroli suggests that “autobiographical accounts feed the hope of finding or of creating unity in a life that is increas-



The Personal Is Professional 33

ingly experienced as disjointed, displaced, and dispersed.”30 This is perhaps why, as Alisa Lebow points out, “diaspora, it seems, can no longer be ­imagined without its attendant cinematic technologies.”31 She calls this “ ‘immigrantitis’: the mania to document one’s first impressions of a new place in which one ­ hether the result of the long-­standing practices of the intends to live.”32 Thus, w first-­person travelogue, the ongoing culture of confession and self-­disclosure, the mistrust of objectivity, the rise of neoliberalism, the ascendancy of the “post-­broadcast” media environment, or the navigation of an insecure and fragmented postmodern world, student travelers’ turn to the repre­sen­ta­tional self is aligned with a culture that has increasingly turned to first-­person media for documentation, communication, entertainment, and commerce.

The Personal Is Professional Making a case for the use of the term “first-­person filmmaking” over “autobiographical film,” Alisa Lebow argues that this phrase allows for the recognition that films operating u­ nder the sign of autobiographical are not solely delineated by a filmmaker’s biography. First-­person films, she argues, move “well beyond the self ” by almost always situating the repre­sen­ta­tional self in relation to another entity, “be it a lover, icon, nemesis, relative, friend, or some larger collectivity (affective, proximate, ­imagined community, clan, group, and so on) or phenomenon.”33 Similarly, Michael Renov writes that many documentary “explorations of the self require a historical other.”34 With “study abroad” as their “other,” ­these student contest videos could address a variety of study abroad concepts and practices: fellow students, weekend travel, new loves, dorm life, “exotic” food, and so on. ­These categories are all referenced in some of the winning study abroad videos. But as ­these first-­person documentaries are also responses to industry-­backed contests, students more often create videos in which their personal study abroad voice merges with the professional one. In ­doing so, they create a study abroad video and gaze that si­mul­ta­neously speaks on behalf of their own student experience and the industry’s interests and values. Take the 2012 Student Diplomat Video Contest sponsored by Connecting Our World, an advocacy offshoot of NAFSA, as a case in point. Beginning in 2009, this contest called on students to showcase “how their study abroad experience has s­ haped them as global citizens, served as a bridge to cross-­ cultural understanding, promoted peace, or positively impacted the local community in which they studied.”35 The grand-­prize-­winning video came from

34

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Ashley Feith, a Marymount Manhattan student who won a $1,000 travel voucher and the title of “2012 Student Diplomat” for her video about her time studying abroad in Greece. In her untitled video, Feith combines images of her experience with a voice-­over that explains the value of studying abroad. Feith tells her viewers that, though it may take “courage and patience,” studying abroad is also an opportunity to realize your potential to adapt and respond to ­challenges. . . . ​The relationships we make as student diplomats create the bonds that are needed among world citizens to manage the situations that arise in a globalizing world system. Understanding the world is no longer just pos­si­ble, it’s paramount. . . . ​Immersing myself abroad gave me a new glass to view the world through that ­either strengthened my values or encouraged me to reconsider and embrace new perceptions. . . . ​Being in the crossroads between the East and West, I began to realize that history ­doesn’t have one side ­because the pre­sent d­ oesn’t. The global understanding ­isn’t global agreement. Tolerances of differences are vital to adapt, which is an invaluable lesson that every­one should have the opportunity to absorb. . . . ​I feel like I can engage in any culture now and be who I am regardless of where I am.36

­ ere, Feith’s video works as the perfect advertisement for both Connecting H Our World and the study abroad industry. With such phrases as “world citizens,” “globalizing world system,” and “global understanding,” the voice-­over is tailor-­made for the current values of study abroad. Feith’s voice-­over also directly serves Connecting Our World’s goals of “foster[ing] a more peaceful world” and “encourag[ing] enlightened global engagement.”37 In turn, the video’s language of “courage,” “adapt[ing] and respond[ing] to challenges,” and immers[ion]” echoes the rhe­toric of study abroad stakeholders. Also taking up current concerns of the study abroad field is “FOMO,” a finalist for IES Abroad’s 2016 Film Festival contest.38 Produced by Rachel Beavers, Courtney Testa, and Roderick Flucas about their time in London in 2016, this video takes up the issue of the “fear of missing out”—­a.k.a. FOMO—as it relates to student use of social media during their time abroad. Over images of students participating in social media, the students inform the viewer how they emotionally dealt with feeling as though they ­were missing out on fun ­either at home or abroad. As chapter 3 on homestay videos addresses, student engagement with social media is an issue the study abroad industry is currently grappling with. As social media offers a greater connection to home, ­family, and friends, which may potentially inhibit students’



The Personal Is Professional 35

immersion into their host country, figuring out how to navigate this new challenge and create best practices is a topic of ­great interest to industry stakeholders.39 This video certainly seems aware of this, and thus si­mul­ta­neously speaks on behalf of student and industry concerns. Industry rhe­toric is also prevalent in the 2014 IES film festival winner East of ­Here (Alexa Penton, 2014). In this primarily interview-­based film about Penton’s experience in Beijing, China, she offers booster-­like statements for the industry: As study abroad students we have the best of both worlds. We get to venture out and try t­ hese intimidating, difficult, exciting new foreign t­ hings and, should anything go wrong, should it get hard, we have our IES ­family to fall back on. And that was certainly my experience in Beijing. I did so many ­things that I was so afraid of. I got a job teaching ­children for whom En­glish was not their first language. I worked an internship where it was expected that I was gonna be using Chinese the ­whole time. . . . ​I hiked in one of the deepest gorges in the world! And when I got a ­really bad headache on that trip, I rode a donkey through that gorge on the side of this massive cliff, and I was convinced I was g­ oing to die.40

Penton’s account reflects study abroad discourse around the importance of courage and growth, while also reflecting industry rhe­toric about the safety of traveling with a study abroad organ­ization. In ­doing so, her video assists the field of study abroad by serving as a useful counterpoint to media cautionary tales about the risks of study abroad, such as t­ hose explored in ­later chapters. Given the transactional nature of award culture, it s­ houldn’t be surprising that a sponsored contest shapes film content. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, sponsoring art awards can play a major role in brand development. At the same time, artists also have much to gain by participating in art contests; the payoff can be money, platforms, networking, notoriety, and personal and professional credentials. Acquisition of t­ hese assets can take luck and talent, but also strategizing about what kind of art wins awards. The films showcased at international film festivals provide illustrative examples. Cindy Hing-­Yuk Wong argues that while the films that screen at international film festivals do not compose a genre per se, they share many textual strategies and attributes. She argues that we can define festival films both by what they are—­a sum of their shared characteristics—­and “by what they are not.”41 Furthermore, she argues that this shared understanding of the festival film shapes and reshapes production of ­future films. Filmmakers on a quest to be included in a film festival, for example, may recognize the importance of having

36

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

some combination of what she defines as film festival film criteria: a serious or minimalist tone, “open narratives,” “small moments,” “everydayness,” and generic innovation.42 In other cases, artists may be willing to craft their film based on what they believe festival programmers want to see. Hing-­Yuk Wong recounts a story of a film festival programmer who was told by a young filmmaker from the Nigerian film industry (“Nollywood”)—an industry at the time sidelined by major film festivals—­“Just tell us what kinds of films you want for the festival and we w ­ ill make them.”43 Though ­these two examples seemingly point to two dif­fer­ent relationships to art making—­one being influenced by a film festival aesthetic, the other trying to enter the system by gaming it—­both reveal that filmmakers more often than not create their work with the exhibition context and institutional frame in mind. This is just as much the case for amateur filmmakers as it is for professionals. According to Ryan Shand, competitions have been central to the identity of amateur film clubs in the UK since the 1930s. In an interview with an amateur filmmaker from the Swan Movie Makers club, the filmmaker is asked what he values about competitions. He responds: “Well I think they seem to prove a stimulus. . . . ​You look at the Ten Best and think, ‘I could do that.’ You begin to borrow. You think what separates the Ten Best, what separates ­these competition winners from your ordinary (film)? You want to lift every­thing up a rung or two.”44 This amateur filmmaker’s response is significant for what it reveals about the relationship of contests to craft. Not only are contests a source of motivation to elevate work, but they also offer a way to get t­ here by providing a blueprint for a winning formula (i.e., “You begin to borrow”). In other words, filmmakers watch for what films win prizes and seek to incorporate ­those strategies into their own work.

Award-­W orthy How does the industry signal prizeworthiness to applicants? Clearly, we can recognize from the previous examples that addressing study abroad rhe­toric and issues is a good strategy. Indeed, sometimes this is built into the par­ameters of a contest, as is the case for IIE’s Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge. This contest, launched in 2015 in collaboration with the New York Times in Education, asked returning study abroad students to submit videos that “demonstrate how study abroad gave them an edge, the impact it had on their life and the world, and how The New York Times content helped them navigate, enhance, or make sense of their experience.”45 Unsurprisingly,



The Personal Is Professional 37

prizewinners and runners-up all feature the newspaper. Alejandro Alba, who studied abroad in China, talks about feeling like a Times travel writer; Elisabeth Stallard, who studied in Barcelona, talks about using the NYT to research food; and Justice Whitaker, who studied in Ghana, tells his viewers that the NYT helped him reflect on home while also keeping him abreast of world tragedies.46 But apart from contest par­ameters that may help shape content, study abroad videos also share a look defined by par­tic­u­lar textual strategies and narrative devices. As is the case with the “film festival film” outlined by Cindy Hing-­Yuk Wong, the study abroad contest video can also be defined as a category based on common textual features. In par­tic­ul­ar, study abroad contest videos share an overwhelming reliance on long-­standing formal conventions of the travelogue. Though the genre has morphed over the years, and varies across narrative, documentary, and home movie modes, many of its primary conventions ­were set in its earliest incarnation, between the years 1907 and 1915. As Jennifer Lynn Peterson details, t­ hese conventions are s­ haped by “an arsenal of clichés,” many of which ­were drawn from a “grid of preexisting formulas” found in e­ arlier pre-­cinematic repre­sen­ta­tions of travel (e.g., illustrated lectures, magazines, postcards).47 ­These formulaic clichés include “picturesque natu­ral landscapes, exotic foreign cultures, modern street scenes, parks, flowers, sunsets, ­water (ocean, lakes, rivers, fountains), smiling ­women and c­ hildren, locals in traditional dress, traditional crafts.”48 Additionally, how ­these images w ­ ere visually presented to the viewer was specific to the new technology of the moving image. Movement is central to the early travelogue, with an emphasis on tracking shots from trains and vehicles rather than static images. Movement is also highlighted by what Peterson calls “collection editing,” in which t­ here is ­little emphasis on continuity or narrative and instead a focus on discrete images that form a “collection of views.” This style of editing made travelogues function as “visual anecdotes” rather than stories, viewing them “like flipping through an a­ lbum of snapshots.”49 Furthermore, cinematography veers ­toward an overwhelming use of the extreme long shot and panning, which enables the camera to capture monumental landscapes and provide panoramic perception. Fi­nally, a tourist perspective is inscribed in the image through point-­of-­view shots, the presence of tourists on screen, and the use of “phantom rides,” a technique in which a camera is placed on the front of a moving object in order to simulate an immersive travel experience for the viewer.50 Indeed, as the moving image and mass tourism developed at the same time, the tourist was an impor­tant figure in the early travelogue and was depicted

38

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

in a number of dif­fer­ent ways. They ­were shown scaling mountains, conversing on trains, driving in cars, watching “natives” perform cultural rituals, and lounging at newly emerging resorts. Furthermore, tourists ­were often implied to be ­behind the camera, ­either through point-­of-­view and phantom ­ride shots or via foregrounding the act of looking. Significantly, tourists and/or explorers are also shown using cameras in early travelogues. Indeed, as Jeffrey Ruoff notes, “in contrast to classical Hollywood films, the cinematic apparatus is frequently displayed and appreciated in travelogues.”51 Despite the travelogue’s transformations as a result of both the coming of sound and the ascendancy of narrative and continuity editing, many of t­ hese formal conventions sustained over time and across dif­fer­ent production contexts. For example, despite the advice given in amateur filmmaking manuals in the mid-­twentieth ­century that instructed amateurs to conform to Hollywood conventions of narrative and visual continuity, Maija Howe reveals the continued practice of “collection editing,” which experts derided as “hodgepodge” editing.52 In turn, Mark Neumann’s close reading of a 1947 home movie of a ­family road trip along US Route 66 reveals the continued practice of seeking out filmable “natives,” as well as the ongoing fascination with cinematographic mobility enabled by mechanical transportation.53 And Patricia R. Zimmermann’s work on the rules that governed home movies in the 1950s reveals how the tourist and the tourist gaze ­were ideologically embedded in travelogues, with amateurs interested in filming ­family vacations encouraged to focus less on sites themselves and more on the families’ reaction to them.54 As new forms of travelogues developed over the course of the twentieth ­century, such as hybrid forms that merged ele­ments of the travelogue with Hollywood narrative cinema, new textual strategies became imbedded in the genre.55 For example, the adventure genre in the form of the expedition and safari film borrows much from early travelogues, while also adding its own conventions. According to Amy  J. Staples, the safari film shares numerous textual and narrative strategies across both its narrative and documentary incarnations. Th ­ ese include films that are structured as journeys, “celebratory scenes of arrival and departure,” adventurers facing “dangerous crossings and natu­ral obstacles,” “touristic detours and side trips,” emphases on panoramic vistas and camera pans over indigenous p­ eople and animals, and inclusion of “spectacular dances, colorful costumes, and exotic practices” for the benefit of adventurers.56 ­These and ­earlier conventions would continue to appear across travel-­related visual culture throughout the twentieth ­century, from airline-­sponsored travelogues such as Pan American World Airways’ New Horizons travel series, to national tourist board documentaries such as Ireland:



The Personal Is Professional 39

The New Convention Country (Robert Monk, 1966), to the travel lecture film cir­cuit.57 ­These travelogue conventions are now well ingrained in popu­lar repre­sen­ ta­tions of a wide range of travelogue landscapes, from Eu­rope to the Global South. This is evidenced by their prevalence in the con­temporary travelogue media par excellence—­namely, IMAX films, whose long-­standing intertwined relationship to the travelogue is outlined in the introduction of this book. Though the advantages and limitations of IMAX technology have enabled IMAX films to have their own par­tic­u­lar aesthetic, they also draw on and technologically elevate many of the earliest conventions of travelogues, including cinematography that provides all-­encompassing views and immersive experiences (e.g., phantom rides).58 Long-­standing travelogue tropes continue in other con­temporary arenas as well, including airline in-­flight entertainment and the tele­vi­sion travelogue. For example, Stephen Groening argues that the cinematic phantom ­ride is remediated through in-­flight screen technology that reproduces the view from the cockpit.59 In turn, Jeffrey Geiger points out that phantom r­ ide techniques are standard features of both the first-­person or celebrity tele­vi­sion travelogue and the low-­budget, homemade travelogues on YouTube.60 Additionally, the tele­vi­sion travelogue incorporates numerous conventions of explorer/safari genres. Tropes of undiscovered lands, au­then­ tic cultures, and conquest are particularly prevalent in the popu­lar televisual culinary travelogue; such tropes emphasize “dangerous crossings and natu­ral obstacles” as well as indigenous p­ eoples encountered, while the cinematography targets “exotic” landscapes and cultural practices for the viewer.61 It is clear, then, that ­there is a common visual language of travel that is deeply embedded within the collective imagination. Though it is constantly morph­ing, this visual grammar nonetheless remains faithful to its earliest conventions. Given this stubborn per­sis­tence, it is no surprise that amateur filmmakers who create study abroad contest videos also incorporate this long-­ standing visual language of travel into their own travelogues. Study abroad contest videos showcase a remarkable number of the typical features and textual strategies identified by Jennifer Lynn Peterson. For example, views of “modern street scenes” are ubiquitous in the study abroad contest film, ­whether they manifest as images of students walking down a street (e.g., Study Abroad in Costa Rica with CEA!!, “soccerchump,” 2008, Costa Rica, Cultural Experiences Abroad (CEA) Study Abroad Video Contest), students in the ­middle of a street scene (e.g., A Firenze Friendzy, Paul Costabile and Ben Koenig, 2008, Florence, CEA Study Abroad Contest), or views of street scenes (e.g., Japan: A Boy’s Journey, Finn Smyth, 2013, Tokyo, IES Study Abroad Film Festival).62

40

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Not to be outdone by street scenes are ­water scenes, of which ­there are an overwhelming number in study abroad contest videos. Students r­ ide in boats, canoes, and gondolas (e.g., Even in Eu­rope . . . ​, 2016, Jordan Cain, Vienna, g­ rand prize winner, and I Choose Openness, 2016, Thamine Nayeem, Morocco, Finalist, IES Study Abroad Film Festival); walk and sit along bodies of ­water (e.g., Untitled, Kate Guthrie, 2016, Costa Rica, second place, ACIS Video Contest); show images of fountains (e.g., Lights of Love, Nick Pakradooni, 2013, Paris, ­grand prize winner, ISA Student Video Contest); marvel at waterfalls and oceans (e.g., Study Abroad in Costa Rica with CEA!!, “soccerchump,” 2008, Costa Rica); go on beach trips (e.g., Untitled, Ashley Feith, 2012, Greece); surf (e.g., Untitled, Jack Lansford, 2016, Christchurch, New Zealand, g­ rand prize winner, ISA student video contest); and swim with fish (e.g., Untitled, Jennifer  O. Etzell, 2016, Perth, Australia, G ­ rand Prize winner, AIFS Study Abroad’s Capture the Culture Video Contest).63 Likewise, locals (or local performers) in traditional dress occasionally appear in study abroad contest videos, sometimes selling crafts or food, as in East of ­Here, and other times dancing during a traditional cele­bration, as in Untitled ( Jillian Branciforte, 2016, Salamanca, Spain, AIFS Study Abroad’s Capture the Culture Video Contest).64 ­These images are part of a general use of the picturesque in study abroad contest videos, in which images of smiling ­children, flowers, rainbows, and sunsets are abundant. ­These images offer viewers soothing and visually pleasing landscapes, whereas images of colorful graffiti and idealized street sweepers cater to romanticized and nostalgic visions of host countries. Together, this reliance on the picturesque turns the study abroad landscape into a picture postcard version of host countries.65 In addition to drawing on archetypal travelogue subject m ­ atter, study abroad videos are also indebted to the cinematography strategies developed in early travelogue eras and common to vacation home movies throughout the twentieth ­century. Point-­of-­view and phantom ­ride shots are common devices in study abroad videos. Smartphones and prosumer technology enable students to visually simulate the immersive experience common to travelogues by taking point-­of-­view footage while walking, skiing, jumping in ­water, driving, or riding in boats, planes, cars, and trains. Study abroad videos also revel in the omniscient gaze, what Alison Griffiths calls a “visuality of surveillance”—­a staple of the travelogue. Though Griffiths reminds us that this omniscient gaze is rendered differently across travelogue history and genres (e.g., early travelogues foregrounded horizontal panoramic perception through the new technique of panning, whereas IMAX films foreground movement through perpendicular space), she argues that central to the travelogue is its goal of



The Personal Is Professional 41

capturing all-­encompassing views of the landscape.66 Like ­earlier travelogues and IMAX films, as well as early ethnographic films, study abroad videos often represent ­these ­great vistas and vast landscapes from atop g­ reat heights. Aerial views from planes, mountains, and cultural monuments are abundant in the study abroad contest video. In turn, new technology enables the study abroad gaze to boldly go where early travelogues ­couldn’t—­underwater. The conventions of the safari film also make their way into the study abroad video. As in the safari film, the study abroad video often features its main characters—­student protagonists—­traversing difficult terrain along their journey. Hiking, rafting, and ascending heights are standard activities showcased in the study abroad contest video. In turn, the typical detours that characters in a safari film take to “exotic” villages are also mirrored in the study abroad video. Students are deeply invested in representing their side-­trip weekend travels and group excursions, sometimes even more so than representing their host country. IES’s 2016 contest winner Even in Eu­rope . . . ​is a particularly blatant example of this. While the director’s study abroad location is Vienna, Austria, his video is entirely composed of montage images of him traveling throughout Eu­rope. Using graphic match editing, the student dances in the ­middle of the frame to the backdrop of one Eu­ro­pean site a­ fter another. In a four-­minute video, he dances his way through eleven Eu­ro­pean locations. Beyond t­ hese devices, one of the most significant vestiges of early travelogues in study abroad contest videos is the way in which they draw on techniques of early travelogues’ “collection editing” and repackage it in the form of the study abroad montage. In the study abroad contest video, collection editing often appears in the fragmented form of ­music videos. To a certain extent, this is the result of the influence of pop m ­ usic on visual storytelling.67 But even ones that ­don’t rely on ­music or are primarily driven by a voice-­over include or are s­ haped as montages, with discrete images of study abroad travel experiences edited together in no par­tic­ul­ar order. While ­there are exceptions, the editing structure of study abroad contest videos more often than not frames its content as snapshots, visual anecdotes, and moving postcards. In ­doing so, the videos often tell less of a story about a journey than they provide the viewer with an upbeat experience and glimpse of a place. Fi­nally, study abroad contest videos heavi­ly feature repre­sen­ta­tions of tourists in the form of fellow students and travelers. This might seem obvious for a film practice made primarily in the first-­person mode and in the era of the “selfie.” Yet the study abroad contest video is obsessed with student travelers in general, far more than it is concerned with locals. Many of t­hese videos emphasize the study abroad student in the context of a cohort; among

42

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

numerous other activities, student groups are depicted on buses and boats, walking in groups, sharing meals and views, and swimming and frolicking on beaches. Together they also take pictures of one another and share a collective point of view.

The Study Abroad Gaze The preponderance of the first-­person mode and travelogue aesthetic in t­ hese industry-­backed, award-­winning videos suggests that the study abroad contest video now has a tacitly sanctioned look. Students recognize this look as a winning strategy. Despite the presence of guidelines that may lead students along unique aesthetic paths, such as instructions to be original, par­ameters that leave room for generic creativity, and judging pro­cesses distinct to individual contests, the first-­person travelogue is nonetheless signaled as a winning approach for students. ­After all, this is clearly a winning strategy for the industry. As marketing tools, t­ hese videos send a message that, even though study abroad can be challenging, it is also the experience of a lifetime: personally rewarding, visually pleasing, activity filled, and challenging without being unsafe. The travelogue aesthetic is what enables the latter two characteristics to emerge. Montages of group activities and adventures with fellow students emphasize both the exhilaration and the communal support of study abroad. In turn, the autobiographical mode enables the industry to showcase narratives of personal and intellectual growth central to its discourses (e.g., overcoming challenges, becoming globally aware). And why s­houldn’t the industry support ­these narrative devices and textual strategies of first-­person travelogue filmmaking? A ­ fter all, study abroad should be rewarding, challenging, safe, and fun. The study abroad video contest is certainly a ­great way to showcase ­these attributes to prospective student travelers. At the same time, the promotion of the first-­person travelogue as the standard b­ earer for industry contests works to undercut many of the industry’s deepest held convictions, even if, as the introduction of this book points out, ­these convictions exist only at the level of rhe­toric. First, the travelogue mode privileges study abroad as a touristic adventure rather than as an academic experience. Despite the field’s long-­held goals of distinguishing itself from tourism, one of the greatest challenges for the industry has been to overcome this ste­reo­type in the face of skeptical faculty, parents, and investors. This is why, as William W. Hoffa notes, “students are constantly reminded that they are ­there to participate in ‘an academic program,’ not just to ‘hang out.’ ”68 You



The Personal Is Professional 43

certainly w ­ ouldn’t know this from award-­winning study abroad contest videos, as ­there are hardly any visual scenes that focus on academics. While ­there are a few videos that depict “ser­vice work” or glimpses of classrooms, the academic experience of study abroad is mostly absent. Classroom experiences, writing papers, research proj­ects, or academic interactions rarely make an appearance in ­these videos; indeed, classroom or educational experiences are nowhere to be found in IES’s 2019 video contest winners.69 Instead, the travelogue montage emphasizes study abroad as a series of outdoor adventures, group bonding, and travel excursions. This is not unpre­ce­dented in the industry. Sarah C. Bishop, Talya Zemach-­Bersin, and Neriko Musha Doerr each persuasively argue that industry marketing places a heavy emphasis on study abroad as an adventure over study abroad as an academic experience, therefore undermining study abroad rhe­toric and values.70 That students’ own contest videos endorse this same message demonstrates that not only do students absorb the aspirational language of the study abroad industry, but they also inherit its problematic tendencies. Furthermore, this focus on travel adventures through the textual strategies of the first-­person travelogue advances notions of an uncritical mobility and global consumption for American students that run ­counter to the aspirational rhe­toric of study abroad. Fighting against study abroad’s increased commercialization and colonial vestiges, stakeholders in the field maintain a belief in study abroad’s capacity to “[develop] critical individuals who are capable of analyzing power structures, building global community, or tangibly helping improve the lives of ­people around the world.”71 Unfortunately, the problematic textual strategies of the travelogue—­particularly the study abroad contest video’s reliance on the techniques of collection editing and the pop ­music montage—­serve to undercut this aspirational goal. By situating the study abroad travel experience, which often includes official and unofficial side trips to multiple countries and regions, within an edited framework that emphasizes picturesque locations as visual anecdotes and as backdrops to personal transformation, the study abroad contest video pre­sents the world in a similar vein as the early travelogue: as a series of easily traversable and consumable landscapes tailor-­made for personal enjoyment and growth.72 While t­here are exceptions, the majority of study abroad contest videos depict students rapidly moving from one foreign location to another, thereby foregrounding the natu­ral ease of the study abroad student to move through, occupy, and consume the landscape. Videos such as Even in Eu­rope . . . ​, in which the student effortlessly dances his way across Eu­rope, are not unique. For example, ISA’s 2017 grand-­prize-­winning Haley Gasparine ISA Paris: My Study

44

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Abroad at a Glance (Haley Gasparine) reproduces this same uncomplicated mobility of the study abroad student when, in two and half minutes, it showcases Gasparine’s travels to seven destinations across Western Eu­rope and North Africa.73 As one beautiful vista, famous monument, and tourist experience merge into another, the video emphasizes travel through rather than interactions within cultures, as well as produces a homogenous vision of the world that diminishes rather than highlights cultural distinctiveness. This homogenous vision conforms to study abroad advertising rhe­toric that, according to Bishop, pre­sents culturally distinct ­people and places of the world as merely “ ‘dif­fer­ent from home’ instead of ‘dif­fer­ent from each other.’ ”74 The uncomplicated mobility and cultural homogenizing demonstrated by students’ editing and narrative choices are enhanced by the predominance of En­glish in the study abroad contest video. The majority of study abroad contest videos do not engage with the language of their host countries. Though ­there are a few counterexamples, most contest videos articulate the value of the study abroad experience in En­glish through on-­screen narration, voice-­ over, or text. This undermines official rhe­toric around the value of second language acquisition during study abroad. In the context of videos that depict stress-­free global mobility for American study abroad students, it also smacks of the kind of cultural and linguistic imperialism that the industry other­wise hopes to eradicate. Fi­nally, in the study abroad industry’s promotion of the first-­person travelogue as the standard ­bearer for awards, it has the unfortunate result of privileging the very tourist worldview that it works to counteract in its sanctioned rhe­toric. As outlined in this book’s introduction, the travelogue has long privileged the tourist gaze. In early travelogues, the tourist point of view manifests as what Tom Gunning calls the “view aesthetic,” a feature of early travelogues that foregrounded the act of looking.75 Jennifer Lynn Peterson points out that the view aesthetic in early travelogues not only “represents the ­thing or place being shown” but also “represents the act of looking at that ­thing.”76 The look and point of view are so significant at this time that, as Peterson notes, “­these are films that have not yet learned to disguise the gawking, objectifying nature of their gaze.”77 This gawking and objectifying gaze is informed by intersecting ideological beliefs around race, class, gender, geography, nation, colonialism, and discovery. Though the travelogue has morphed over the years and now includes films that have an awareness of its problematic legacy and challenge its textual and ideological imperialism, the consistency with which the travelogue privileges the act of looking through the view aesthetic continues to leave them open to the same critique.



The Personal Is Professional 45

­There is no hiding the gawking, objectifying gaze in the study abroad contest video. Like early and mid-­twentieth-­century travelogues, it is on full display. Students exist in t­ hese spaces to consume experiences and to look. But equally impor­tant is what and who they ­don’t look at. In early travelogues, ­there was intense focus on interactions with so-­called primitive p­ eople. In fact, Jennifer Lynn Peterson argues that, more than anything ­else, it was the “encounter” between locals and tourists or locals and the camera that was an obsession for early travelogues.78 Unlike this foundational period for the travelogue, ­these con­temporary award-­winning study abroad contest videos do not feature encounters between student travelers and locals. Except in specific cases of the picturesque—­costumed p­ eople performing or occasional smiling ­children—or ­people on streets as a backdrop, the study abroad gaze is not turned ­toward the ­people of the host country. Given what Peterson outlines as the power relations inscribed in ­these early travelogue encounters, we may be inclined to see the lack of visual interactions with locals in con­ temporary study abroad contest videos as progression away from the visual imperialism of early travelogues. At the same time, given that the study abroad gaze neither trains itself on nor meaningfully features citizens of host countries, this absence is less reassuring. Noticeably absent in most award-­winning study abroad contest videos is any meaningful interaction with locals, e­ ither in classes, on side trips, in cafés, or at homestays. Only a few videos show interactions with locals, and, often in ­these cases, they work for the study abroad organ­ization as facilitators. Instead of meaningful interactions with locals, the study abroad gaze is turned back on the student and their world. And it turns out that the world of the study abroad student, as presented through ­these first-­person travelogues, seems entirely bound up with themselves, their study abroad cohorts, and their collective fun. If early travelogue gazes advanced visual imperialism, ­here they advance visual narcissism. Foreign locations become a backdrop to images of students’ experiences in them, not with them. Set to their favorite songs, the study abroad contest video becomes a narcissistic ode to the self. Central to ­these narcissistic odes to the self is the equation of global travel with self-­improvement and battling obstacles. Award-­winning videos often reference the challenges students overcome during their study abroad. For example, the winner of IES’s 2019 video contest, Les Cinq Mois (Chase Devens and David Smith), details the “bad luck” a student had during his study abroad in Paris. During his five months abroad, he left his phone on a Pa­ri­sian bus, accidentally took his friend’s passport to the airport, got his camera stolen, broke his foot, and witnessed the catastrophic fire at Notre Dame Cathedral.

46

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

But from this series of “bad luck,” the student learns that “growth comes when you least expect it.” In a direct address at the end of the video, he confidently tells the viewer that next time bad luck comes his way, “[he] know[s] [he] can ­handle it.” Similarly, ­after overcoming her own strug­gles during her time in Cape Town, including spending ten days in the hospital with the flu, the director of IES’s 2019 semifinalist Lekker (Sarah Campbell) learns to “look fear in the face and say . . . ​this is my life, this is my moment. I have to give it every­thing.” Likewise, ­after telling the viewer that he neither loved nor accepted himself, the melancholic student narrator of A Story of Healing (Haytham Mohamed), a fellow IES 2019 semifinalist, recounts how his time in Madrid enabled him to heal and b­ attle his demons: “Spain taught me many t­hings, one of which was about fear. And time. ­There’s never gonna be the right time. So if you are waiting for fear to subside, stop waiting. Accept it and act alongside with it.”79 Learning to successfully navigate the challenges attendant to travels is a valuable skill, but the predominance of t­ hese narratives of student self-­improvement, as well as their valorization through industry awards, results in the further homogenization of global differences for students. As a site for healing, growth, and overcoming fear, the study abroad locale itself m ­ atters less for its cultural distinction and what students can learn about it than for its ability to serve as a backdrop for self-­improvement.

Winners and Losers In investigating the travelogue of early cinema, one of Jennifer Lynn Peterson’s primary goals is to highlight their oppositional potential.80 She argues that ­because the ideologies of early travelogues w ­ ere so transparent, they enabled “opportunities for re­sis­tance.”81 For example, she demonstrates how, in their obsessiveness with looking at and encountering ­people across national and cultural differences, early travelogues enabled the subject of the gaze to return the gaze back to the camera, showcasing “the tension of the colonial encounter” at the very least and, at its most subversive, undermining the objectifying power of the image.82 Moreover, she points out that though early travelogues inscribed a tourist point of view, they also allowed new immigrants to connect with home cultures and potential mi­grants to imagine new lands.83 For Peterson, the result is that ­these early travelogues are less “po­liti­cally retrograde” than they appear, making them available for critical readings in their historical moment and, in turn, critical reassessment now.84



The Personal Is Professional 47

One would be hard-­pressed to make the same case for the con­temporary study abroad travelogue. Peterson’s case for the travelogue’s oppositional potential works ­because it refers to a historical context when travel, tourism, and the moving image w ­ ere developing together. The travelogue and mass tourism ­were in the pro­cess of figuring out their relationship to one another, and the meaning of each practice was still in flux. ­Today, the maturation of mass tourism and travel images, as well as the critical reflections about them, does not allow for such visual naivety and requires new textual strategies. Certainly, as Mark Neumann’s analy­sis of a set of amateur travel films from 1947 reveals, by midcentury travelers w ­ ere aware of the potential intrusiveness of their gaze.85 Thus, it is precisely b­ ecause the study abroad film incorporates, without challenge or reflection, many of the textual strategies developed in this foundational period of travelogue filmmaking that it neither contains oppositional potential nor advances global competence in the con­ temporary moment. Instead, the study abroad contest video continues to demonstrate just how tenacious visual tropes of Western travelers are. With regard to the contests themselves, the study abroad industry clearly has good intentions. Even if the goal is marketing, giving students agency over representing the official study abroad narrative is laudable. But the prob­lem with ­these contests is that they provide agency in a pedagogical vacuum. ­There is no teaching involved in ­these endeavors, only a list of contest guidelines and/or professional tips whose rationale and pathways are often unexplained. ISA’s criteria for 2020 contest submissions inform students that “an exceptional video ­will . . . ​evoke emotion in the viewer” and should “convey a clear and coherent message”; IES informs potential applicants that 2020 video finalists w ­ ill be selected “on the basis of capturing the spirit of study abroad, production quality, entertainment, and originality”; and AIFS’s guidelines state that “all videos must be in good taste” and that “shaky footage is a bummer, so please try to have as steady of a hand as pos­si­ble, or set up a tripod!”86 Some of ­these criteria, such as the suggestion that students avoid shaky camera work and strive for coherency, are clearly geared ­toward marketing goals. This institutional advice serves to limit creativity and impose standards, historically common practices in amateur filmmaking manuals.87 It also prioritizes high production value and visual coherence over substantive ideas and messaging. This is exemplified by IES’s 2019 contest winning videos, whose other­wise banal content is masked by excellent visual quality and skillful editing. In turn, other rules are inconsistently heeded. This is particularly the case with rules around the incorporation of m ­ usic. Even when organ­izations

48

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

include regulations against copyrighted ­music, provide resources to public domain audio sites, or ask students to refrain from using ­music entirely, students ­don’t always listen and organ­izations ­don’t seem to care. For example, despite students signing “waiver & release form[s]” that guarantee all submission material is original, is in the public domain, or is used with permission, the 2014, 2016, and 2017 winners of IES Abroad’s Study Abroad Film Festival all include m ­ usic expressly prohibited from use on YouTube.88 Similarly, while AIFS Study Abroad’s guidelines inform video contest applicants that they “prefer entries be music-­free,” all but one of 2019’s six winners are ­music videos of young students gallivanting around Europe—­and nearly interchangeable ones at that.89 Beyond ­these ­simple guidelines, students are left in the dark about how to approach repre­sen­ta­tions of study abroad and their relationship to other cultures. ­There is no pedagogical approach to help students avoid the power dynamics inscribed in the conventions of the travelogue, ­there is no educational guidance ­behind the mandate to be original,90 and ­there is no effort to help students think about how to move beyond narcissistic odes to themselves and ­toward a larger vision. This pedagogical gap reveals one of the most pernicious prob­lems of con­temporary education: the belief that students’ technical facilities, which can be quite advanced in the twenty-­first c­ entury, equate to an understanding of media images. But, as t­hose of us who work with students recognize, just b­ ecause they can use a camera ­doesn’t mean they ­either know what to say with it or recognize the ramifications of their creations. Of course, even if organ­izations have a pedagogical inclination, t­here is likely neither the time nor the resources to address t­ hese concerns. Writing about the industry’s failure to address pressing issues, Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart remind us that most “prac­ti­tion­ers in the field . . . ​are too preoccupied with solving prob­lems related to the everyday and year-­to-­year operation of exchange programs to find much time.”91 At the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that ­these contests w ­ ere a seemingly easy and low-­ maintenance proj­ect for the study abroad industry to adopt. But the real­ity on the ground is that organ­izing contests and adjudicating awards are never ­simple propositions. As James F. En­glish says, ­because the act of creating contests and awards has become a “cultural habit,” it often makes institutions blind to their material and unglamorous challenges. He notes that in our excitement to jump on the award bandwagon, “we d­ on’t think about the a­ ctual business of administering, judging, and presenting a prize e­ very year, the ­labor that this ­will demand of ourselves and, more importantly, of ­others. . . . ​Someone



The Personal Is Professional 49

­ ill have to choose judges and persuade them to participate. Someone ­will w have to determine, interpret, and enforce rules of eligibility, procedures of nomination, and so forth.”92 En­glish points out that this kind of work ends up being incredibly time-­consuming, laborious, and far more work than ­imagined, even for the smallest of contests.93 This is no doubt the case for ­those responsible for operating study abroad video contests, who are more than likely juggling multiple responsibilities in a field that is itself already time-­consuming, ­labor intensive, and often underresourced. In this administrative context, marketing to students with their own glossy self-­obsessed images has taken pre­ce­dence over educating them about the repre­sen­ta­tional politics of making them. This is a huge prob­lem for the study abroad field given that global media—­its narratives, flows, and connectivity—­has the capacity, albeit not the assurance, to play a significant role in the cultivation of the moral disposition necessary for global citizenship, one of the supposed priorities of the field. The twenty-­ first-­century turn to moral and ethical dimensions of media, advanced by such scholars as Roger Silverstone, Nick Couldry, Lilie Chouliaraki, Alexa Robertson, and John Tomlinson, argues that engagement with and production of global media can create the conditions for the development of a cosmopolitan worldview that may stir new global affiliations and commitments, foster identification and empathy, and incite social action.94 However, as t­ hese scholars point out, mere engagement with global media is not enough. Silverstone argues that in order for global media to truly enhance a cosmopolitan worldview, it needs to go beyond the cele­bration of its capacity to connect and instead move ­toward an engagement with and a responsibility t­oward “the world [it] bring[s] to our doors.”95 According to Tomlinson, in order to do so, global media practices must take on a pedagogic role, becoming active agents in the education of progressive cosmopolitanism and global citizenship.96 Unfortunately, the majority of study abroad advocates, and certainly ­those promoting video contests, naively celebrate the won­ders of technology for global connectivity while remaining ignorant of its pedagogic stakes. Dazzled by the shiny new object and marketing possibilities of student-­generated content, the study abroad field prioritizes the f­ ree ­labor of the gift economy over the pedagogy of an ethically engaged global media. In d­ oing so, the study abroad contest video actively undercuts the very worldview the field hopes to cultivate. The irony is that while the study abroad industry may not offer any substantive guidance to contestants in the creation of their study abroad videos, ­these videos nonetheless serve a pedagogical role in the study abroad marketplace.

50

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

As the introduction to this book argues, repre­sen­ta­tions of study abroad play a significant role in teaching students what to expect from student travel and how to see and be across cultural differences. Travel repre­sen­ta­tions not only provide armchair travel or immersive experiences in and of themselves, but also offer a blueprint for what it means to be a tourist. According to Ellen Strain, the tourist gaze is “tutored,” operates in many cultural forms, and “may long precede any ­actual immersion within a foreign landscape.”97 Thus, long before students may head out on their study abroad they learn what it means to both look like and look as a study abroad student. To be sure, they learn this in a number of ways, but none with as much clout as the award-­winning videos that are given a rubber stamp by the study abroad industry. Unfortunately, in this arena, what prospective student travelers learn is not a progressive global outlook but rather that the world is a series of consumable adventures that they ­will be at the center of. And yet, even though this idea runs ­counter to the aspirations of the study abroad industry, the study abroad contest video is merely a reflection of the con­temporary study abroad industry, exposing the chasm between its rhe­toric and its real­ity. According to Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart, “As the definition of the desired outcome of international education shifts from ‘understanding’ of other cultures and nations to ‘global competence’, the idea of dialogue between cultures is replaced by a concept of successful maneuvering in a vaguely defined arena of global culture.”98 On the institutional level, this manifests in programs that, according to John Engle and Lilli Engle, “are too rarely connected to mechanisms for meaningful, regular cultural contact and reflection.”99 Instead, they argue that programs create “parallel worlds” in which students are able to live similar lives as at home but with the perk of a contrasting background.100 However unflattering this assessment may be, the study abroad contest video bears this out in clear and strong ways. With both a camera pointed at the self and a host of travelogue conventions, the study abroad video depicts the “parallel” worlds of American students and demonstrates how easy it is for them to “successfully [maneuver]” the global arena. As we know, “successfully maneuvering” the globe is no substitute for actually understanding, encountering, and engaging it—­something the study abroad industry, its award culture, and advocates of global awareness ­will have to contend with.

2 ◆ INTERCULTUR AL COM MUNIC ATION A MONG “INTIM ATE STR ANGERS” Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and Documentary Study Abroad

It is now axiomatic that the hallmarks of documentary style and content, such as observational camerawork, direct interviews, voice-­overs, raw footage, handheld cameras, and nonactors, are, as Jason Middleton points out, “simply one of many aesthetic options available in con­temporary media culture.”1 Nowhere do we see this more than in real­ity tele­vi­sion, which has absorbed most of the techniques that ­were once considered the province of serious documentary. The formal techniques of immediacy and intimacy developed in direct cinema and cinema verité are the genre’s principal forms of cinematography, while real­ity tele­vi­sion’s focus on ordinary p­ eople harks back to traditional documentary’s preoccupation with the same.2 In turn, real­ity tele­vi­sion’s use of narration and direct interviews is straight out of documentary’s playbook, evoking the formal techniques of what Bill Nichols calls the expository and participatory modes of documentary.3 Real­ity tele­vi­ sion thus casts a wide net across documentary discourses, mixing and matching a range of documentary’s formal ele­ments to create its own signature style. If documentary’s imprint on real­ity tele­vi­sion is now taken as a given, far less explored is the reverse traffic of influence—­that is, real­ity tele­vi­sion’s 51

52

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

influence on older, established modes of documentary. While many scholars point to real­ity tele­vi­sion’s con­spic­u­ous influence on film and tele­vi­sion narratives, from The Hunger Games’ “game-­doc” survival story to UnREAL’s parody of The Bachelor franchise, real­ity tele­vi­sion’s influence on the very form from which it borrows is less clear.4 Yet, June Deery argues, real­ity tele­vi­sion’s “growth has meant that commercial and noncommercial programming more closely resemble each other.5 John Corner makes a similar point, noting that the “extensive borrowing of nondocumentary kinds of look (the dramatic look, the look of advertising, the look of pop video) by documentary, have [has] complicated the rules for recognizing a documentary.”6 And Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn argue that real­ity tele­vi­sion’s emphasis on subjective emotion has resulted in documentary becoming “more emotional, more confessional, and self-­reflexive.”7 For ­these authors, this current state of aesthetic crossbreeding means unknown but certainly dramatic changes for what we understand as serious documentary. It is this aesthetic crossbreeding, and the consequences of it, that I explore in this chapter. In par­tic­u­lar, the chapter focuses on what happens when the seemingly crass discourses of real­ity tele­vi­sion meet the sober discourses of study abroad. What might appear as odd bedfellows already share much in common. Both real­ity tele­vi­sion and study abroad place a high priority on interactions between dif­fer­ent ­people and cultures. To foster potential drama, real­ity tele­vi­sion produces interactions across differences of race, culture, gender, religion, class, and sexuality. Whereas to foster “intercultural competency,” study abroad emphasizes interactions across global differences, including the attendant cultural, social, and linguistic differences therein. Promoted by educational leaders, policymakers, and organ­izations as one of the primary learning outcomes of study abroad participation, intercultural competence has many aliases, including global competence, international competence, global awareness, cross-­cultural competence, and multicultural skills. While ­these numerous monikers reflect the breadth of definitions used to describe it, Darla K. Deardorff notes that “the one ele­ment that [is] agreed upon 100% by . . . ​intercultural experts [is] the ability to see the world from ­others’ perspective.” Th ­ ese experts agree that developing this skill enables “be­hav­ior and communication that is both effective and appropriate in intercultural interactions.”8 Indeed, the authors of Study Abroad in a New Global ­Century define intercultural competence in the context of cultural exchange, describing it as “the successful engagement or collaboration . . . ​between individuals or groups who do not share the same cultural origins or background.”9 To develop this skill, they suggest that participants have “sensitivity to cultural



Intercultural Communication 53

differences, awareness of sociohistorical cultural contexts, adaptability and flexibility to view cultural differences and contextual circumstances through an informed ethnorelative lens, and the empathy to seek deeper understanding while withholding judgment.”10 Though studying abroad is not the only path to achieve intercultural competency, stakeholders in the field argue that international education offers the ideal conditions for its development. Despite l­ imited evidence, the belief that students who study abroad are more globally aware and sensitive to cultural differences is now a truism within higher education.11 In the current global landscape, students’ acquisition of t­hese skills has taken on a new sense of economic and po­liti­cal urgency. Allan Goodman stresses this point in his foreword to The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad, in which he recounts meeting a CEO of a large multinational at the World Economic Forum who told him, “[Americans] come to us with very fine degrees and from all the best schools. But they do not ­really know how to work well with ­people from other countries. And we cannot afford to keep them long enough to teach them what they should already have learned.”12 Intercultural competence is thus now regarded as essential for competing in and contributing to the global marketplace. What happens, then, to study abroad’s emphasis on intercultural competency when real­ity tele­vi­sion’s rhetorical style of ­human interaction—­frequently insensitive, ethnocentric, and judgmental—­informs it? If, as scholars have argued, real­ity tele­vi­sion in its varied global forms has informed many parts of our lives, including how we manage ourselves as citizens, how we negotiate cultural identity and traditions, and how we understand our lives in relation to mediation, surveillance, or government authority, in what ways might it inform communication across cultural differences?13 To engage this question, this chapter zeroes in on two educational documentaries that focus on the development of intercultural competency through study abroad: Crossing Borders (Morocco/United States, 2009) and The Dialogue (China/United States, 2013). Directed by Arnd Wächter, both documentaries are distributed through Crossing Borders Education, a UK-­based organ­ization that offers a variety of intercultural and diversity resources designed for educational institutions and communities. ­These resources include workshops, trainings, and custom travel programs, as well as curriculum designed to work with assessment rubrics developed by the Association of American Colleges & Universities. A centerpiece of most of ­these resources is Crossing Borders Education’s “intercultural documentary trilogy,” which includes the two documentaries ­under discussion, as well as American Textures (Arnd Wächter, United States/

54

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

UK, 2016), which follows six young Americans from diverse cultures on a road trip through the American South. Through collaborations and alliances with universities (e.g., Michigan State University co-­produced The Dialogue), study abroad organ­izations (e.g., the School of International Training), and educational media (e.g., National Geographic Education), Crossing Borders and The Dialogue are designed to exhibit in a variety of educational contexts, including classrooms at home and abroad, workshops for faculty, students, and administrators, and international education conferences, as well as online as part of educational “tool kits” available through Crossing Borders Education’s and National Geographic’s websites.14 Thus, t­ hese documentaries situate themselves far from the production, exhibition, and reception contexts of real­ity tele­vi­sion. Yet despite their dif­fer­ent contexts, this chapter shows that Crossing Borders and The Dialogue are strongly influenced by real­ity tele­vi­sion, drawing on its rhe­toric and beliefs to shape their vision of study abroad and intercultural competency. In par­tic­u­lar, Crossing Borders and The Dialogue model themselves on real­ity tele­vi­sion’s house-­sharing, “intimate strangers” model, in which ­people from dif­fer­ent backgrounds are placed together in close and pressure-­inducing living quarters for a sustained period of time. As a result of their adoption of this common real­ity tele­vi­sion framework, Crossing Borders’ and The Dialogue’s mediation of intercultural communication and conflict resolution are intertwined with the logic of real­ity tele­vi­sion’s mediation of ­these same practices. In examining the consequences of this entanglement, my goal is to neither point out the failures of the documentaries nor reject their usefulness as intercultural tools. Both documentaries offer excellent starting points for conversations about intercultural communication and serve as valuable predeparture tools for students studying abroad. Rather, this chapter agrees with John Corner, who argues that “what we understand by ‘documentary’ is always dependent on the broader context of the kinds of audiovisual documentation currently in circulation.”15 As real­ity tele­vi­sion is not only synonymous with the visual culture of ­house sharing among “intimate strangers” but also arguably the most widespread popu­lar training ground for intercultural conversations, greater attentiveness to how it affects intercultural conversations in other arenas is sorely needed. As Dominic Pettman argues, “Even if we loathe real­ity TV, and claim to never watch it, that ­doesn’t mean we ­haven’t all been engulfed in its logic, mannerism, motifs, conventions, and conceits.”16 This chapter explores this engulfment, looking at how real­ity tele­vi­sion’s models of intercultural communication have migrated into



Intercultural Communication 55

more thoughtful intercultural arenas through the transnational flow of real­ity tele­vi­sion formats, rhe­toric, be­hav­ior, and expectations.

Real­ity Tele­v i­sion and House Sharing One of the most common and earliest formats of real­ity tele­vi­sion can be traced to MTV’s The Real World (1992–), a program that observes, through the use of what Misha Kavka calls the “live-in camera,” seven or eight young adults of dif­fer­ent social and cultural identities in a house-­sharing situation. Kavka calls this format the intimate strangers subgenre of real­ity tele­vi­sion, one whose goal is to produce interpersonal interactions ­under “conditions of intimacy.”17 Though real­ity tele­vi­sion has transformed over the years to include other formats, such as competition and make­over shows, and one can also trace the lineage of real­ity tele­vi­sion to other models besides the intimate strangers subgenre, this model remains a staple.18 While ­house sharing is sometimes more conceptual than literal—­for example, the ­house may be an RV or an island—­the basic premise of using a live-in camera to observe intimate strangers sharing space has remained a consistent and popu­lar theme of global real­ity programming for over twenty-­five years. Given the strong presence of the house-­sharing format in real­ity tele­vi­sion, it is no surprise that students are one of its many subjects. A ­ fter all, who has more experience h­ ouse sharing in intimate settings with strangers than college students? The sharing of bedrooms, bathrooms, common spaces, and kitchens is neither strange nor infrequent for college-­age adults. Perhaps this is why, as the first house-­sharing show in the United States, The Real World featured young adults, a population that, according to Laurie Ouellette and James Hay, is familiar with the “provisional home.”19 Though real­ity tele­vi­sion’s house-­sharing situations have become increasingly more aty­pi­cal over time, most notably in swapping scenarios depicted in shows such as Wife Swap (ABC, 2004–2010, 2013) and Seven Year Switch (fyi.tv, 2015), college students sharing provisional homes have played significant roles in global and domestic real­ity tele­vi­sion programming, including The Living Soap (BBC, 1993), Nummer 28 (Holland, 1991), Freshman Diaries (Showtime, 2003), College Hill (BET, 2004–2009), and Road Rules (MTV, 1995–2007). Within ­these repre­ sen­ta­tions, study abroad has also taken a small but significant role. Of its six seasons on BET, College Hill features two in which its student cast members lived or traveled abroad: season 4 in the Virgin Islands (2007) and season 5 in

56

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

London (2008). And Road Rules devotes its eighth season (1999) to students studying aboard a cruise ship through the Semester at Sea organ­ization. Placing real­ity tele­vi­sion ­house­mates in foreign locations is smart programming, fostering one of the major goals of the intimate strangers genre: igniting tension and drama among cast members and h­ ouse­mates. As June Deery points out, the locations for real­ity tele­vi­sion programming “are generally selected or constructed to produce high physical or psychological stress.” One way producers enhance this on house-­sharing programs is to “encourage the cast to go on (paid for) vacations where the close quarters create high drama.”20 Other ways include having contestants share the intimate spaces of bedrooms and bathrooms, no ­matter how large the overall shared space may be. A common real­ity tele­vi­sion scene depicts new cast members arriving and gawking at their expansive new surroundings before rushing off to their shared and more intimate quarters. In its proj­ect of manufacturing emotions through artificial design, real­ity tele­vi­sion’s indebtedness to the tele­vi­sion show Candid Camera (1959–1967) is clear. Understood by media scholars to be the forerunner of real­ity tele­vi­ sion, Candid Camera is famous for secretly filming ordinary ­people in artificially designed scenarios produced to generate discomfort and confusion. As Anna McCarthy details, the visual experiments showcased in Candid Camera ­were one of several social experiments that reflected the postwar belief in surveillance, deception, and simulation as scientific tools that could assess ­human be­hav­ior.21 It has been argued that the setup of house-­sharing real­ity programs is similar to ­these early social experiments. As Misha Kavka points out, the first truly global real­ity show—­Big ­Brother (2000–)—­highlighted its role as both a televisual and a social experiment. In addition to being one of the first “game-­docs” with a reliance on competition and elimination, Big ­Brother also incorporated into its format “princi­ples associated with scientific experimentation: isolation, highly controlled conditions and full-­scale visibility.”22 The scientific nature of Big ­Brother was further enhanced by the appearance in its early years of an in-­house psychologist who provided insight on the ­house­mates’ be­hav­ior.23 Though in its nascent years ­these real­ity show techniques would prove controversial, causing public debate across Eu­rope, China, Africa, and the ­Middle East, televisual social experiments of full-­scale surveillance and ­house sharing have become normalized in Western culture and continue to appear, although not without controversy, across the globe.24 Shows such as Jersey Shore (MTV, 2009–2012), One Ocean View (ABC and CTV, 2006), 60 Days In (A&E, 2016), Roommate (South ­Korea, 2014–2015) Terrace House (Netflix and Fuji TV, 2012–), Bad Girls Club (Oxygen, MTV



Intercultural Communication 57

Australia, TV11 Sweden, 2006–2017), Shipwrecked (Channel 4, 2000–2012), Winter Break: Hunter Mountain (MTV, 2018–), Celebrity House­mates (Nigeria, 2018–), House­mates (Australia, ABC2, 2016–), and the many international versions of Big ­Brother all draw on the intimate strangers model first developed in The Real World. Real­ity tele­vi­sion, particularly the house-­sharing model in all its variations, is now a common place to both participate in and witness social experiments on ­human subjects, turning the tele­vi­sion and the format into what Laurie Ouellette and James Hay call “a dramatic ‘civic laboratory.’ ”25 As was the case in the social experiments of the first half of the twentieth ­century, central to the social experiments of real­ity tele­vi­sion are tests of interpersonal dynamics. The research design questions of the early social experiments and Candid Camera are the same questions that drive the intimate strangers model of real­ity tele­vi­sion: How ­will p­ eople react to ­others? How ­will they behave in artificial, unusual, and stressful situations? How far ­will ­people go? In answering t­hese questions, real­ity tele­vi­sion producers must guarantee that the outcomes of their social experiments are as exciting and dramatic as pos­si­ble. From the outset, then, real­ity tele­vi­sion offered more than just surveillance of h­ uman be­hav­ior ­under artificial conditions. It also exploited the narrative structure and style of the soap opera in order to guarantee dramatic interpersonal content and narrative thrust; hence, the earliest forms of real­ity tele­vi­sion often appeared ­under the nomenclature “docusoap.” Stella Bruzzi identifies the numerous soap opera techniques that are now staples of real­ity tele­vi­sion: fast-­paced editing, charismatic characters, m ­ usic, dramatic cliffhangers, and crosscutting between multiple plotlines.26 The emphasis on creating compelling storylines and characters in the docusoap is challenged, of course, by the very premise of real­ity tele­vi­sion: surveillance of nonactors in unscripted tele­vi­sion. To work around t­ hese limitations, producers use a number of techniques and cheats to squeeze dramatic plotlines from ordinary ­people in daily situations, such as the use of “frankenbiting editing” (the creation of narrative arcs from out-­of-­sequence or unrelated footage), the use of staged activities and trips that ­will incite in­ter­est­ing storylines, and heavy-­handed producer manipulation of cast members’ actions and interviews. However, initial casting is the first and most impor­tant ele­ ment of production, what Misha Kavka calls the “primary site of control” for the creative pro­cess. According to Kavka, producers of The Real World developed the casting framework that would become the model for l­ater shows in the intimate strangers subgenre: “Participants are selected according to what are at times the contradictory criteria of social representativity and personal charisma. The selected . . . ​participants represent a diverse range of social

58

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

identities as well as religious and po­liti­cal beliefs, yet at the same time they are selected on the basis of their idiosyncrasies, for their potential to create the dramatic tensions that are the mainstay of scripted tele­vi­sion.”27 While a cast member’s individual identity is impor­tant ­here, what is most impor­tant is how this identity w ­ ill rub up against the collective. Cast members are of interest ­because of, not despite, how they interact with other h­ ouse­mates. It is the interpersonal interaction between cast members “­under conditions of intimacy” that is real­ity tele­vi­sion’s stock-­in-­trade.28 Since casting is often based on social and cultural differences, it is unsurprising that dealing with the difficulties that arise from them is often the source of narrative conflict in real­ity tele­vi­sion. Writing from a Western perspective, Laurie Ouellette and James Hay argue that “managing diversity” in the form of multiculturalism is one of the major premises of house-­sharing shows, particularly the shows that revolve around the “provisional homes” of young ­people. They suggest that shows like The Real World, Road Rules, and College Hill are “demonstrations/exercises that lead ordinary young p­ eople to realize their relation to the rules (house rules and road rules) for getting along with difference.”29 This managing of difference through group governance extends to most “intimate stranger” hybrid forms, including game-­docs and swapping scenarios. Ouellette and Hay suggest that the social experiments of game-­ docs such as Survivor (CBS, 2000–) and Top Chef (Bravo, 2006–) “test the limits of individual and team endurance, the depth of individual and group resolve, [and] the ability of groups to resolve differences and act fairly.” In turn, swapping shows such as Wife Swap and Black.White. (Fox, 2006) foreground both “the ability of subjects to tolerate the discomforts of living difference and sharing the same space with alternative lifestyles” and “the capacity of subjects to adjust their familiar management solutions to the requirements of the alternative lifestyle.”30 For Ouellette and Hay, the lessons about managing differences that real­ity tele­vi­sion imparts are a consequence of neoliberal governance whereby tele­vi­sion, rather than the state, becomes the primary tool for the education of and solutions for inequity and discrimination.31 In contrast, Kavka points to more generative possibilities, noting that intimate strangers programming that trades in visualizations of inequity across social difference “can provide the material for viewers themselves to critique t­ hese structures.”32 Though ­these analyses are ­limited to the Western perspectives from which ­these authors write, ­there can be no argument that dramatic conflict around social difference is now a standard device of real­ity tele­vi­sion.



Intercultural Communication 59

House Sharing Abroad Unsurprisingly, study abroad–­themed real­ity programming provides a perfect way to showcase the management of differences. The conflicts around identity that are already the mainstay of the intimate strangers subgenre are enhanced by many of the issues connected to studying abroad, such as ethnocentrism, culture shock, cultural isolation, language barriers, and loss of cultural authority. Road Rules: Semester at Sea and College Hill provide good examples. In 1999, MTV’s Road Rules placed six students in the University of Pittsburgh’s Semester at Sea cruise ship program, which took approximately 600 students to ten countries over one semester.33 Like previous seasons of Road Rules, the Semester at Sea season included intense interpersonal drama, including tension around race.34 But ­here, ­these tensions ­were heightened by the impact of cross-­cultural encounters. For example, ­after the students visit Africa, including stops in South Africa and ­Kenya, Ayanna, an African American w ­ oman, is accused by her female cast mates of practicing voodoo against them, an accusation that an irritated Ayanna does nothing to dispel. The Africa visit also incites cross-­cultural anxiety for Shaw, an African American male student. When the students are given the opportunity to stay with a South African ­family for the night, Shaw chooses to stay with a white Afrikaner ­family, a choice that results less in “truth and reconciliation” than in a tense eve­ning filled with awkward silences. BET’s College Hill, which features black students from dif­fer­ent colleges in a house-­sharing context, also showcases the conflicts that can develop as a result of cross-­cultural encounters. In season 5, set in Atlanta, the show takes the cast members, many of whom dislike each other, to London for a getaway. ­There, they join a group of black British students at an event at Kingston University celebrating UK Black History Month. At this event, cast member Sira, an American citizen who emigrated from Guinea, West Africa, enters the African dancing contest to show off her dancing skills. Her dancing results in critical responses from one of her male cast mates. As he watches her dance, he remarks that she is making a fool of herself and questions the authenticity of her African credentials. This dismissal of a cast member’s national pride and cultural heritage was also pre­sent in season 4 of College Hill, in which four American college students attend the University of the Virgin Islands and live with four students from the Island communities. In this highly controversial season, the American students spend the entire season disparaging the culture of the Islands, belittling its ­music, dance culture, food, and fashion.

60

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

The result of this be­hav­ior is physical vio­lence across cultures, an ejection of a cast member from the show, and controversy for the university. As shows that are about both inciting and managing differences, Road Rules: Semester at Sea and College Hill foreground each aspect—­conflict and management—in varying degrees. Dramatic arguments make up the bulk of ­these shows’ content, but they also feature conversations in which ­people try to work through their issues. In the absence of successful conflict management, which is often the case, cast members instead posit détentes, especially at the close of the season and reunion episodes, where hostile parties find ways to be around each other and even wax nostalgic over supposed good times. Final episodes typically include cast members’ reflections on how the painful experience of living with strangers enabled personal growth. Despite their vastly dif­fer­ent production contexts, Crossing Borders and The Dialogue borrow much from the house-­sharing genre outlined above. Foremost, the premise of each documentary follows the framework of the intimate strangers model of real­ity programming, whereby a handful of culturally dif­ fer­ent students are chosen to live and travel together as a social experiment. This is foregrounded early on for viewers. Text explaining each documentary’s function as an experiment appears on-­screen in the first several minutes of each film. Crossing Borders announces its premise in the context of politics (“At a time of world tensions four American and four Moroccan students ­will travel and live together”), whereas The Dialogue strips down the experiment to its basics (“Four American and four Chinese students ­will travel and live together”). In an era of real­ity tele­vi­sion’s global dominance, the frontloading of t­ hese premises sets up certain expectations for a generation of viewers now well trained in the grammar and formats of real­ity tele­vi­sion. Whereas The Real World, the original model for h­ ouse sharing, needed a tag­line to tell viewers what happens when strangers live together (“­People stop being polite and start getting real”), viewers no longer need that cue in order to expect dramatic, if not combustible, outcomes from the combination of cultural difference, strangers, and intimacy. As such, in the context of ­these documentaries, interest in where the students ­will travel, why they are ­going, and how they ­will get ­there is overshadowed by the more impor­tant fact that they w ­ ill be d­ oing all of this in the context of fabricated and most likely dramatic togetherness. Cast members also have a televisual awareness regarding the centrality of difference, intimacy, and social interaction to the documentary proj­ects. At the beginning of The Dialogue, Cory, a young Korean American male from Phoenix, informs the viewer: “Just the fact that we ­were so diverse I think speaks to, um, the aim of this proj­ect, which was to take p­ eople with drastically dif­fer­ent



Intercultural Communication 61

viewpoints, dif­fer­ent world views, dif­fer­ent beliefs and put them together in this social experiment and see how they would interact in a dif­fer­ent context.” ­Later, in the same documentary, David, a white student from New York, confirms that the group dynamic was the most impor­tant ele­ment of the documentary for all of the participants: “To bring together p­ eople from two dif­fer­ ent cultures like the United States and China [means] y­ ou’re gonna have a lot of cultural and po­liti­cal questions that come to the surface. . . . ​­Those issues did come up. But at the end of the day we ­didn’t find them to be as relevant to [the] adventure that we ­were engaged in, which ­didn’t have to do with just abstract politics but how we ­were ­going to communicate with each other and live together. At the end of the day this is what ­really mattered to us.” The use of the phrase “social experiment” by Cory and the prioritizing of interpersonal dynamics by David are significant. They reveal the cast members’ awareness—­ conscious or other­wise—of the connections between real­ity tele­vi­sion dynamics and their own intimate strangers documentary proj­ect. As in real­ity tele­vi­sion, the dif­fer­ent viewpoints, worldviews, and beliefs showcased in The Dialogue and Crossing Borders are based around identity categories. Overcoming national differences and global inequities are the main priorities in ­these educational documentaries. As casting is the first site of control, viewers ­will recognize an intentional social engineering of difference, with student cast members representing diverse and symbolic types. Each documentary introduces its participants and develops their roles in some way that marks their differences from each other. In Crossing Borders, participants are distinguished through categories of race (white American, black American), religious affiliation (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Atheist), economic status (well-­off, poor), gender (male, female), and personality type (charismatic, goofy, intellectual, reserved). While ­these categories are also foregrounded in The Dialogue, particularly race, gender, and religious affiliation, The Dialogue primarily foregrounds experiences with global mobility as distinguishing markers, with some participants having previous experience studying abroad in Eu­rope, Amer­i­ca, and China, and o­ thers having ­little or no international travel experience. Likewise, special locations and events are also used as catalysts to incite disturbances around difference. As the students in Crossing Borders and The Dialogue are already “on the road,” each dif­fer­ent location they tour provides new scaffolding from which discussions around difference are built. However, the major catalysts for producing drama in each documentary are group discussions facilitated by the director and his team, which includes a cross-­ cultural facilitator. While each film serves as a travelogue of sorts, highlighting

62

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

dif­fer­ent ele­ments of Moroccan and Chinese culture, the central purpose of each film is to showcase the interpersonal dialogues that serve as the students’ primary activity throughout their journey. ­These discussions, what David in The Dialogue calls “thermidor-­like heater catalyst group discussion[s],” appear in a variety of settings in each film, from private homes and a ­women’s center in Crossing Borders to ­hotel and meeting rooms in The Dialogue. During ­these discussions, when conflict or confusion between participants takes place, the documentaries are keen to show how ­these emotions are the result of the challenges and misperceptions that can occur when communicating across cultural, national, and linguistic lines. For example, early on in Crossing Borders, the Moroccan students argue over ­whether it is men’s role to protect ­women. They also disagree about the number of police available in Morocco to protect ­people. This conversation is quite animated and heated, with the Moroccan students yelling at each other as the American students stare in bewilderment. Afterward, the American students talk about how dif­fer­ent this conversation style is compared with their own, hypothesizing that Americans are more timid about disagreeing with one another. L ­ ater, diagnosing this discussion in a solo interview, Rochd, one of the Moroccan male students who was at the center of the conflict, tells the camera: “If we ­don’t speak with emotion, that ­wouldn’t be, you know, a Moroccan discussion.” Just how dif­fer­ent communication styles can be across national cultures also becomes apparent in The Dialogue when Elena, a white student from Lansing, Michigan, experiences friction with Huan Yu, a male student from Beijing. In a solo interview, Elena explains why her personal style of communication was backfiring: “My sound for listening is ‘hmm,’ and for him ‘hmm’ is like scorn. . . . ​It’s . . . ​­really dismissive. And so I would just be ­doing that, and he would be getting r­ eally irritated. . . . ​I had no idea why he would be getting upset.” Experiences such as ­these are coupled with more formal lessons about the challenges of intercultural communication, such as when Anna, The Dialogue’s cross-­cultural facilitator, has the student group switch from speaking solely in En­glish to speaking solely in Chinese. This switch helps the American students understand the privilege they usually have with regard to global communication. ­These intercultural experiences no doubt offer valuable lessons to both participants and viewers. Yet, by framing themselves as social experiments and borrowing the formatting and rhe­toric of real­ity tele­vi­sion, the visual rendering of intercultural training ends up linking the documentaries as much to real­ity tele­vi­sion as to the social science and global education contexts from which intercultural communication springs. In par­tic­u­lar, the documentaries’



Intercultural Communication 63

mediation of intercultural communication—­the surveillance of its subjects, its conflicts, and its reconciliation processes—­within a real­ity tele­vi­sion house-­ sharing framework opens them up to what Annette Hill calls a “real­ity mode of engagement,” whereby the grammar and logic of real­ity tele­vi­sion, rather than that of documentary, rule the day.35 Thus, intercultural communication manifests through real­ity tele­vi­sion’s chief practices: the per­for­mance of identity, excessive emotional display, and the equation of the mediated self with authenticity. The remainder of this chapter looks at how and where the real­ity mode of engagement works in the documentaries, and what it reveals about intercultural communication and competence in the twenty-­first ­century.

Mediating Intercultural Communication For all the variance in real­ity tele­vi­sion, the majority of programming shares one basic premise. The “core business” of real­ity tele­vi­sion, writes Misha Kavka, “is placing ordinary p­ eople ­under observation in a mediated situation.”36 Mark Andrejevic argues that this mediation of h­ umans through tele­vi­sion surveillance has altered how we understand the notions of “authenticity” and “realness” in relation to identity. He suggests that surveillance-­based shows such as The Real World and Road Rules created a culture that “equates submission to surveillance with self-­expression and knowledge.”37 Drawing on interviews with cast members and press coverage of the aforementioned tele­vi­ sion shows, Andrejevic writes about the idea of “surveillance acclimatization,” whereby ­we’ve become acclimated to the perpetual visual monitoring that real­ity tele­vi­sion promotes. Furthermore, as real­ity tele­vi­sion’s full-­scale surveillance endorses raw truth-­telling, self-­expression, and intimate self-­disclosure as its highest values, validating them through airtime and accompanying internet circulation, he argues that surveillance itself is now associated with the characteristics of honesty and authenticity. In other words, the more real­ity tele­ vi­sion’s surveillance is normalized, and the more this surveillance is associated with the cele­bration of personal disclosure, the more we equate the two. Mediated surveillance goes hand in hand with the idea of the au­then­tic self.38 Significantly, this now long-­standing coupling of routinized surveillance with self-­expression and disclosure means, as many have argued, that real­ity tele­vi­sion does not merely represent p­ eople’s au­then­tic identities but also produces them, with the media apparatus itself, as Misha Kavka suggests, being “constitutive of the production of [the] au­then­tic self.”39 John Corner describes this pro­cess as “selving,” a pro­cess by which “ ‘true selves’ are seen

64

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

to emerge (and develop) from under­neath and, indeed, through, the ‘performed selves’ projected for us.”40 Real­ity cast members themselves affirm this “selving” pro­cess. Andrejevic’s research into real­ity tele­vi­sion participants reveals that they saw their time on the shows as a “learning experience—­a means of getting in touch with themselves and o­ thers.”41 Cast members talk about the importance of perpetual surveillance for holding them accountable to themselves and loved ones, for providing opportunities to share real experiences with off-­screen friends and ­family, for enabling a test of their identity and values, for challenging them to develop into their true and better selves, and for guaranteeing they ­were keeping it real and being honest.42 ­These experiences, Andrejevic points out, are regarded as empowering, turning the problematic regime of surveillance into a seemingly benevolent system of self-­help that confirms self-­worth.43 The beliefs that real­ity tele­vi­sion produces realness rather than merely reflecting it, that surveillance technologies serve as empowering forces for visibility and identity development, that perpetual monitoring holds us accountable for being our au­then­tic selves, and that the camera fosters the revelation of truth as easily as, if not more than, it compels artifice have thus been cemented in a generation of real­ity tele­vi­sion viewers, even as debating and challenging the merits of ­these beliefs remain an equal part of the discourse. This is evident in both Crossing Borders and The Dialogue, in which the conditions of the documentaries—­house sharing among intimate strangers and surveillance of unscripted interactions and events—­inspire participants to display raw emotions, stretch their identities, and reveal seemingly au­then­ tic selves. Take, for example, Moroccan student Fatah’s pro­cess of “selving” in Crossing Borders. On one of their excursions throughout Morocco, the students spend time in Fatah’s hometown of Salé, outside of Rabat. Th ­ ere, they are filmed helping Fatah with his nonprofit organ­ization, which aims to combat poverty through education, by interacting with local schoolchildren. Afterward, in one of the group’s discussion sessions, the students gather close together on couches as Fatah emotionally shares his reasons for developing his nonprofit. Talking through swelling tears, he shares: You are in a place that nobody wants to help you and you . . . ​­don’t like the situation . . . ​not [just] the situation for yourself, but the situation of ­people in your neighborhood. When you see a person begging and some p­ eople just have one meal per day . . . ​I r­eally feel, like, lonely sometimes. Like when I had to stop ­going to university. It w ­ asn’t my choice. I was, like,‘[do] I m ­ atter?’ I r­ eally suffered when I ­didn’t go to university. But I d­ on’t like to see other p­ eople . . . ​from



Intercultural Communication 65

my neighborhood not educated and have . . . ​prob­lems ­going to school. I ­don’t want to see p­ eople in my neighborhood eating from the trash, you know. Some ­people in my neighborhood de­cided to . . . ​take action you know. Nobody wants to help us so let’s help ourselves.

Throughout this heartfelt disclosure, cutaways to the larger group show both the Moroccan and American students emotionally affected by Fatah’s confession. Rapt with attention, they wipe away their own tears as they listen to his tearful account of poverty, sacrifice, and activism. Shortly thereafter, Fatah appears alone, talking to the camera, reflecting on the experience of sharing his tearful emotions with the group: “It was r­ eally a group moment ­because the hearts ­were all together. The solidarity of the hearts w ­ ere all together. Usually Moroccans ­don’t cry in front of ­people. Especially males, you know” (emphasis added). If Moroccan men usually ­don’t cry in public, in the context of an intimate strangers documentary proj­ect, quite the opposite happens, confirming the potency of the live-in surveillance camera for unmasking artifice and the repression of public suffering. The live-in camera provides an opportunity for the selving pro­cess to take place, in which the “real” Fatah emerges. By confessing that his disclosure of private be­hav­ior was aty­pi­cal on national and gendered levels, Fatah suggests to viewers not only that they are witnessing his au­then­tic self—­a self that he normally keeps hidden—­but also that his supposedly true self developed as a result of a per­for­mance in front of the camera. As such, he tacitly confirms the trajectory from surveillance to self-­ disclosure to the au­then­tic self. But the real­ity mode of engagement is less concerned with individual self-­ disclosure and self-­discovery in and of themselves and more in how ­these ­things emerge in the context of o­ thers. Dramatic confessions and emotional displays are only impor­tant in the way they affect witnesses who can respond to them. Similarly, intercultural dialogue is also relational, with self-­disclosure meant to foster greater self-­awareness and empathy as students begin to see the world from dif­fer­ent viewpoints. This is certainly the case for Mannel, a young ­woman from Marrakech, whose empathy for Fatah drives her to her own self-­discovery. Fatah’s disclosure of his experience having to leave the university as a result of poverty is the catalyst for Mannel to realize that she, as a ­woman who has always had access to education, owes her success to her ­mother. Filled with emotion, she rushes from the room, the camera following her, as she calls her m ­ other and thanks her for every­thing she has given her. Mannel ner­vously paces as she begs her ­mother’s forgiveness, ultimately breaking down and passing the phone to Fatah, who speaks to her ­mother while

66

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Mannel collects herself. She continues to pace while telling the documentary’s concerned director, who appears on-­screen with a worried look on his face: “I ­can’t believe [it]. . . . ​She’s too nice. I just missed that all ­these years. I just remembered to tell her that I love her.” In this scene, then, Mannel’s emotional display and personal revelation, which offer viewers the most private glimpse into Mannel’s life, suggest to viewers that they are seeing the real Mannel, whose identity develops and authentically reveals itself before the camera. If the power of both intercultural communication and the real­ity tele­vi­sion disclosure rests in their relationship to o­ thers, also central to their purpose is to reveal how conversations across cultures are subject to challenges and conflict. Indeed, both intercultural encounters and real­ity tele­vi­sion disclosure can be misread and rejected. This is illustrated by the conflict in The Dialogue between the roommates Mercedes, an African American female student from Texas, and Yu, a female student from the province of Chengdu in China. During an intercultural dialogue session, Yu accuses her American roommate of having “a sense of superiority” to the Chinese students. This accusation stems from Yu’s anger over Mercedes’s impatience with the slow pace of cross-­ cultural conversations with nonnative En­glish speakers. Yu tells Mercedes: “You ­don’t have the right to be impatient. . . . ​[Rather,] us Chinese students have the right to be impatient ­because we have worked many years to speak En­glish.” Additionally, Yu is angry about an observation Mercedes made in a previous session in which Mercedes compared Americans’ right to criticize their government with what she perceived as the Chinese p­ eople’s inability to criticize their own. Yu tells her and the larger group of students how she interpreted Mercedes’s statement: “For me it’s just like [you w ­ ere] showing we are oppressed [and that] we do not have h­ uman rights but you do. But that for me is not the case. We do not express our po­liti­cal ideas in a group discussion like this, not ­because we are oppressed but ­because [of] our Chinese way of thinking . . . ​and I think you are trying to show your superiority.” Flummoxed and wounded by ­these accusations, Mercedes begins to cry and responds to Yu that she feels judged based on Yu’s preconceived notions of Americans. She asserts that her observation about ­human rights in China was truly a question based on her own admitted ignorance, and that she is hurt that Yu would not speak directly to her about this when it happened. L ­ ater, she tells some of her fellow American students that she was offended that Yu equated her, a black w ­ oman, with the privilege and superiority most often granted to white male Americans. In this scene between Mercedes and Yu, viewers witness a range of raw emotions: anger, confusion, shame, indignation, frustration, and distress.



Intercultural Communication 67

Though ­others are involved in this intercultural dialogue, the camera stays focused on close-­ups of Mercedes and Yu, intercutting back and forth between them as they speak or listen to each other’s viewpoint. This, then, is very much a drama between two ­women. Is this drama an accident? In the world of real­ity tele­vi­sion, the tensions between Yu and Mercedes would be heavi­ly manufactured, anticipated by casting decisions and goaded by producer influence. This, it turns out, may also be the case in The Dialogue. Interestingly, at the beginning of the film, viewers learn that, of the eight cast members, Yu and Mercedes are the least well traveled, with Yu never having left China and Mercedes having only briefly left the United States. Furthermore, we also learn that Yu and Mercedes are roommates throughout the trip. It is hard not to see this casting and housing decision as intentional. Of all the students on the trip, Mercedes would no doubt have the most culture shock—­ which both she and other participants attest to throughout the trip—­while, in turn, Yu would have the least experience with Americans. On the one hand, perhaps the high level of culture shock and cultural differences each student would no doubt share was the director’s catalyst for teaming up Mercedes and Yu, with the idea being that they would find points of commonality that would help them assuage the intense emotions and psychological stress associated with cross-­cultural travel and intercultural engagement. On the other hand, arguably the potential for cross-­cultural challenges might be much greater for Yu and Mercedes as roommates than had each been placed with ­either Elena, who had previously traveled to China, or the well-­traveled Yan. Placing Yu and Mercedes together points ­toward a real­ity tele­vi­sion plot device meant to potentially spark in­ter­est­ing and possibly dramatic intercultural interaction. Putting ­these intimate strangers together in one of the most intimate of spaces—­the bedroom—­has the potential to enhance rather than minimize the possibility of stress between the roommates. Casting and housing decisions with re­spect to Yu and Mercedes certainly pay off as the film gives the bulk of its dramatic arc to t­ hese two participants; close to half an hour of the documentary’s sixty-­six minutes of ­running time is devoted to their conflict. Part of this time is spent on postconflict interviews where the participants and observers reflect on the raw emotions they experienced. Significantly, Yu’s reflections reveal her own equation of the documentary with real­ity tele­vi­sion, particularly the way that participants in “intimate stranger” programs associate the genre with empowerment. In an interview in a h­ otel room, in which Yu is framed in a medium shot as she sits on a bed, she reflects on how the documentary pro­cess emboldened her to be a dif­fer­ent person: “I think this journey is a journey of self-­discovery. I am . . . ​

68

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

very introvert[ed]. And I never thought I could talk so much in a group of ­people. And I even argued. I should say I [found] my strength within . . . ​ [found] my voice. And I’m not afraid to express myself. Before I tended to keep all [­these] ­things in my heart, all [­these] ­things buried in my mind.” And: “What I learned from this trip is that ­there is a power­ful Yu hiding in the introvert[ed] ­silent Yu.” From Yu herself, then, we learn that the documentary has peeled off the layers to reveal her inner core. Learning to share her feelings in front of both intimate strangers and the camera empowers and enables the true, new and improved Yu to emerge. The role of authenticity in this conflict becomes impor­tant to o­ thers too, who l­ ater perform their own postmortem of the intercultural dialogue not only to diagnose the conflict but also to discern the true intentions of the p­ eople involved: What’s ­really ­going on with Mercedes? Is she ­really ethnocentric? Was her question as innocent as she claimed? And was Yu r­ eally as angry as she sounded? Of Mercedes, Yan suggests that culture shock and homesickness are the cause of her difficulties. For Elena, Mercedes’s strug­gles are prob­ ably the result of both her difficulties with the Chinese language and the diminished sense of power she feels as a result of being in a foreign culture. In turn, both Elena and Cory suggest that language issues may also be the root of the conflict between Mercedes and Yu, positing that Yu may not have meant exactly what she said, ­because she ­isn’t a native En­glish speaker. ­These assessments of the truth b­ ehind the participants’ actions function similarly to real­ity tele­vi­sion rhe­toric in two ways. Like real­ity tele­vi­sion’s direct address interviews (in the form of ­either “video diary confessionals” or producer-­conducted interviews), the interviews offer the documentary participants a space to assess cast mates’ be­hav­ior, while also heightening the interviewee’s own authenticity by, as Leigh H. Edwards points out, “establish[ing] emotional intimacy, sympathy ­toward the speaker, [and] a sense of their interiority.”44 In turn, ­these interviews offer a place for both participants and viewers to diagnose the authenticity of cast members. While several studies have shown that most ­people understand that real­ity tele­vi­sion is manipulated in the form of casting, editing, and staging, June Deery points out that ­these same studies also suggest that viewers still “value and try and locate the real and the raw,” still “[wait] for the mask to drop or for someone to reveal their true colors,” and still regard “media as privileged sites for accessing social realities.”45 ­These practices of searching for authenticity, as Edwards suggests, reflect “our current fascination with the status of truth and real­ity in a digital context, in which it can be harder to distinguish between real and fake.”46 Thus, ­these interview postmortems in Crossing Borders and The Dialogue reflect a



Intercultural Communication 69

real­ity tele­vi­sion mode of engagement whereby emotional disclosure on camera, however contrived, is regarded as the best way to be seen as who you truly are and, in turn, to see ­others as they truly are.

The Real World Of course, neither this generation nor its real­ity mode of engagement is homogenous. On the one hand, it is true that real­ity tele­vi­sion has a strong presence across the globe, including in North Africa and China, from which the non-­American participants in Crossing Borders and The Dialogue hail, and that most of this programming adapts Western templates. On the other hand, as Marwan M. Kraidy reminds us, the models and central concerns of real­ity tele­vi­sion scholarship do not easily migrate across nation, region, and locality.47 For example, in his own research on real­ity tele­vi­sion across the Arab world, Kraidy demonstrates how “Arab real­ity TV provides a platform to reclaim ­things social and po­liti­cal . . . ​by showcas[ing] contentious debates over liberal values and practices . . . ​in stark contrast with the focus on neoliberal values and practices—­survival-­of-­the-­fittest social be­hav­ior, willing submission to surveillance, individual assumption of the state’s role—­that characterizes scholarship on real­ity TV in Western countries.”48 Kraidy’s caution to scholars thus means that while June Deery may be correct that, as a result of the global reach of real­ity tele­vi­sion, “a generation of viewers is growing up that regards unscripted TV as the norm,” what this normalizing of real­ity tele­ vi­sion actually means for viewers, participants, producers, and cultures across the globe varies greatly.49 Certainly, attention to global differences must be applied to the educational documentaries ­under discussion. While they are produced by a Western educational media organ­ization—­the filmmaker is Western Eu­ro­pean and Crossing Borders Education is located in the UK—­the participants come from very dif­fer­ent geopo­liti­cal and cultural backgrounds. Cast members hail from vari­ous provinces of the ­People’s Republic of China, decolonized but Western-­oriented Hong Kong, Arabic and Muslim North Africa, and culturally distinct regions of the United States. To say that they all have the same experience with real­ity tele­vi­sion rhe­toric—as e­ ither viewers or participants—­ reproduces the scholarship that Kraidy cautions us to avoid. Indeed, whereas all real­ity tele­vi­sion trades on notions of authenticity, this foregrounding of authenticity in Chinese real­ity tele­vi­sion is, according to Daria Berg, part of a larger proj­ect in post-­socialist China to reject “the staged spectacles of socialism

70

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

and the repre­sen­ta­tions of prescribed character in socialist realism.”50 Berg argues, “This new mode of filmmaking belongs to the era of post-­socialism, originating in the desire to ‘get real,’ in the dual meaning of representing the ‘real’ and awaking from illusion.”51 In turn, Kraidy’s work on real­ity tele­vi­sion in Arab nations and the Arab diaspora suggests that real­ity tele­vi­sion’s notions of authenticity become mired in public debates about Islam, the Arab world, and modernity. In t­ hese debates, Western-­influenced real­ity tele­vi­sion, even though adapted to local cultural specificities, is publicly challenged and debated ­because it is seen to reflect the ongoing attempts by the West to po­liti­cally and culturally shape Arab life. At the same time, the range of identities depicted and examined on real­ity tele­vi­sion pre­sents for many a welcome alternative and expanded vision of au­then­tic Arabic life and identity, one that differs from ­those presented by religious and cultural authorities and institutions. The real­ity tele­vi­sion quest for authenticity in the Arab world, then, is in a constant state of agitation as it moves between competing claims on Arab identity and culture.52 Still, as Katherine Sender points out, ­because of the “increasing ease with which formats and participants travel across national bound­aries,” it is impor­ tant “that we think through the global migrations of real­ity TV from a variety of perspectives and in the context of highly mobile media, politics, and publics.”53 Thus, it is essential not only to look at the cultural specificity of transnational formats but also to pay attention to where real­ity modes of engagement intersect. For, as Kraidy also points out, despite the cultural and national specificities of real­ity tele­vi­sion across Asia, Africa, and the M ­ iddle East, Western real­ity tele­vi­sion’s focus on the individual and its “promise of individual transformation” nonetheless resonates across international formats.54 As a result of the transnational flow of real­ity tele­vi­sion, the quest for authenticity via visibility remains a shared real­ity mode of engagement, albeit one that is differently articulated across national and cultural formats. The question thus becomes: How do t­hese differently s­ haped quests comingle in a global documentary that draws on real­ity tele­vi­sion rhe­toric? Can they comingle in their uniquely articulated fashions or does the Western real­ity mode of engagement subsume culturally specific quests for authenticity and personal transformation? The manner in which the documentaries pre­sent students overcoming differences offers insight to this question. On the one hand, unlike Western real­ ity tele­vi­sion, the documentaries ­don’t avoid the so­cio­log­i­cal reasons for interpersonal conflict.55 For example, in Crossing Borders, during a heated discussion about Americans’ perceptions of Muslims, Tim, from Washington,



Intercultural Communication 71

DC, tells the group that when Muslims commit terrorist acts ­because of cartoons, Americans think that Muslims are “irrational” and “out of [their] minds.” To this, Hamida, a young ­woman from Tangier, responds that without any power to garner re­spect for their religion and worldviews, Muslim members of “third world countries,” some of whom are illiterate, are only left with the power to express rage. With this statement, Hamida reveals an economic and po­liti­cal basis to what is other­wise perceived as religious vio­lence. L ­ ater in the documentary, the film references wars in the ­Middle East to suggest how easy it is for ­people across cultures to become enemies, highlighting how communication and understanding across cultures can be de facto thwarted by the experience and theater of war. The film closes by situating participants in the contexts of borders, depicting the American students easily crossing the border from Morocco back into Spanish territory, while the Moroccan students, lacking the same global mobility, stay ­behind. This closing scene is a stark reminder of the global privilege the American students have and how this might inform their relationship to the world. In turn, in The Dialogue, during the heated conflict between Yu and Mercedes, each party situates herself and her be­hav­ior in the context of her nation’s personal strug­gle. Mercedes raises the issue of the civil rights strug­gle in Amer­ic­ a, while Yu raises the issue of suffering and strug­gle in China. The documentaries visually support their inclusion of ­these histories by including corresponding archival footage. That this is the only such archival footage in the documentary suggests that the documentaries take each ­woman’s story seriously by placing it within the contexts of national politics and experiences. Both documentaries, then, connect interpersonal challenges to larger social and global issues, undercutting real­ity tele­vi­sion’s typical minimalizing of ­these concerns. On the other hand, conflict resolution in the films is fraught with Western real­ity tele­vi­sion optics and perspectives. For example, in a group dialogue about religion in Crossing Borders, Fatah and Rochd get into a heated intracultural conflict over God’s authority and an interpretation of a line from the Koran. Deeply upset by this exchange, Rochd angrily storms out of the group. As in real­ity tele­vi­sion, where the camera typically stays with individuals postconflict to see what ­will emerge, the documentary films Rochd praying ­after the argument. This is followed by separate postmortem interviews with Rochd and Fatah, who each agree that this type of heated, emotional discussion is normal for Moroccans, w ­ hether over religion or football. “Being angry in Moroccan friendship,” Rochd says, “does not mean that we are not friends.” But as Fatah and Rochd continue to reflect on their argument, their reflections quickly turn to Islam in an international context, making it clear that

72

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

this is the line of questioning they are asked to respond to. Each thoughtfully and carefully defends Islam as a good religion that is corrupted by extremists and “dark interpretation[s].” Fatah makes it clear that he “was taught by the book, by the Koran, not to kill an innocent person, not to kill a child, not to kill a ­woman, not to kill an old person.” In the context of a film made by Crossing Borders Education, which, according to its website, was developed “in response to the social, cultural and po­liti­cal situation of the post 9/11” climate, t­ hese interviews about Islam are not entirely unexpected. On its “About” page on its website, Crossing Borders Education argues that “the current world situation is largely ­shaped by cross-­cultural and social tensions and our f­ uture depends on social awareness and intercultural understanding. During this time ­there is a critical need for a new generation of individuals and f­ uture leaders who understand the major challenges to intergroup conflicts and who have the capabilities, commitment and grit to address them. Crossing Borders Education is committed to empowering individuals to realise their opportunities for growth, and to become responsible global citizens.”56 Surely, both Islamic extremism and problematic equations of a religion with terrorism are some of the major challenges standing in the way of successful intercultural encounters. Therefore, staging interviews about conflict in the name of religion with students who have the “capabilities, commitment, and grit to address them” makes sense. Still, ­there is a curious logic that moves Crossing Borders to this place, a logic that can only be the result of a Western perspective and Western real­ity televisual rhe­toric. Rochd and Fatah’s conflict was neither about terrorism nor religious extremism, but rather their differing interpretation of the Koran and religion in their lives. How did their reflection on this conversation about religious textual interpretation shift so quickly to defenses of Islam—­defenses that are surely not needed between them? While Fatah’s au­then­tic self-­ disclosures may actually reflect the Arab world’s ongoing debates about tradition and modernity—­how to have self-­authority as a religious Muslim being one of the central issues in his conversation with Rochd—­a Western vision ­shaped their conversation into one about religion and terrorism. This is confirmed by the fact that, although the two Moroccan ­women in the documentary ­were part of the conversation about religion, and one w ­ oman actually argued about the importance of religion and God to her identity, t­ hese w ­ omen are not called on to speak about religion, let alone religion and geopo­liti­cal vio­lence. A ­ fter the dialogue, Mannel briefly states how curious it was that the conflict in a film about intercultural communication was between one culture, but beyond this, her opinions on the conversation and religion are erased, as



Intercultural Communication 73

are t­ hose of her fellow cast mate Hamida. Moreover, none of the Americans get to speak about dif­fer­ent interpretations of religion in the United States, despite the fact that ­there ­were brief references to this in the same discussion, with Deanna, a white Jewish ­woman from Richmond, ­Virginia, arguing that religion ­isn’t central to ­people’s lives in the United States, while Kimberly, a black ­woman from New York, suggesting its centrality for many. That only Fatah and Rochd are called on to speak on behalf of both religion and extremism in follow-up interviews underscores how much t­ hese scenes are s­ haped by Western ideology. As young religious men, Fatah and Rochd are the face of terrorism in the West. Having them reject terrorism and speak about the peaceful core of the Islamic religion serves as a reassurance that intercultural encounters are pos­si­ble. At the same time, the very presence of their testimonials about religious extremism in the first place speaks not only to producer manipulation typical of real­ity tele­vi­sion, which highlights the sensational and dramatic over the educational, but also to the documentary’s orientation ­toward Western concerns about global terrorism. This Western framing is embedded throughout the documentaries produced by Crossing Borders Education. All of its film resources at this juncture point to the organ­ization’s greatest interest being in dialogue between Western cultures and non-­Western cultures. More specifically, despite the director’s northern Eu­ro­pean roots and the organ­ization’s Scottish home base, all the Westerners in the documentaries are American. Thus, the framing of difference in ­these documentaries is first and foremost posited as differences between Amer­i­ca and cultural ­Others. What this means is that, despite the quite dramatic intracultural conflicts that surface, at some level viewers are asked to engage with them in the context of global rather than local or internal divisions. If the section featuring Rochd and Fatah speaking about religion and extremism suggests anything, it is through a Western framework that differences and conflict are ultimately pitched and resolved. This is visually supported by real­ity tele­vi­sion optics of group fun and tension-­reducing activities. In real­ity tele­vi­sion, while shifts in location are often used to heighten tension, special activities are alternately deployed to reduce conflict, with activities such as dinners, barbecues, or excursions where cast mates come together in harmony intercut with tension-­filled scenes or appearing at series closure. Similarly, both Crossing Borders and The Dialogue rely on special activities for tension reduction and group bonding. Nonthreatening and nonpo­liti­cal activities in Crossing Borders and The Dialogue, in which the groups of students are revealed to be harmonious and cohesive, are intercut throughout the difficult conversations. In China, the group is

74

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

shown dancing in a club, sharing stories on a beach, touring cultural sights, eating street food, and enjoying an after­noon at a panda zoo. In turn, the student group in Morocco is shown hanging out at a beach skimming stones along the ­water and bonding on a countryside hike. Significantly, this Western framing is produced not only through content. The non-­Western participants, who often equate authenticity with “American,” also manufacture it. This is most clear in The Dialogue. In one of the more intriguing conflicts in the documentary, Yan, the young ­woman from Hong Kong, and Han, the young man from Beijing, get into a conflict over Chinese identity. Together, piled on beds in a small h­ otel room, the group watches a film about Chinese p­ eople’s reactions to the events of 9/11, some of which are depicted as negative t­ oward Americans. One of the American students, David, asks the Chinese students if they thought the film’s depiction of Chinese reactions was accurate. Han becomes somewhat flustered and says that while he thinks some of the responses to 9/11 in the film are extreme, he also has a hard time offering his opinion about this subject to both Americans and “fake-­American” students. ­Here, Han’s use of the term “fake American” overwhelms the issue of 9/11, which is quickly cast aside for a dif­fer­ent conversation. The term “fake American,” which elicits a ner­vous laugh from the Korean American student Cory, refers to Yan, who not only lives in Hong Kong but also studied in the United States. At being called a fake American, she is visually shaken but remains ­silent. What follows is an uncomfortable discussion about Hong Kong’s reintegration back into the ­People’s Republic of China. Han becomes defensive, suggesting that Yan s­ houldn’t criticize the ­People’s Republic of China, ­because what happens ­there ­doesn’t affect Hong Kong, an idea that Yan, who believes what occurs in Mainland China affects her too, rejects. Han, quite shaken by this conversation, awkwardly apologizes for making Yan and the room uncomfortable. However, Yan keeps pressing Han, telling him he should feel f­ree to express his opinion. David agrees, offering the following advice to Yan: “Sometimes it’s good to be blunt.” The next day the students debrief what happened in this conversation. Yan begins: “While I understand that ­there [are] big differences between me and you when it comes to the relation[ship] between Hong Kong and China . . . ​and I do welcome [­those] differences . . . ​I heard your ‘fake American’ term and I ­didn’t respond to that b­ ecause I [­didn’t] want to [start] any argument. . . . ​I think that by calling me a ‘fake American’ student, it is ­really [hurtful] ­because I’ve never seen myself as an American. I see myself as a Chinese student who [lived] in Amer­i­ca and [was] influenced by the Ameri-



Intercultural Communication 75

can tradition.” Han offers an apology to Yan, saying that he ­didn’t even realize or remember that he said that to her. Despite this apology and Yan’s rejection of the label of American, it is nonetheless determined by many in the group, including Yan herself, that it is indeed Yan’s American style that is the result of her friction with Han a­ fter all. Elena shares with her fellow American students her belief that Yan’s experience living in the United States meant that she understood she could communicate in direct ways but that this conflicted with the Chinese style of communication, which Yu calls “very dif­fer­ent” in its use of “very mild words.” Though Han ­doesn’t again use the word “American” to describe Yan, he describes his frustration with her to his fellow Chinese students by saying that it’s not ­because she comes from “from Hong Kong. It’s ­because [of] her personality. Sometimes she d­ idn’t express herself in a polite way.” In a dif­fer­ ent group session, he is honest with Yan about this, telling her that he finds her opinions “offensive” and her personality “too critical.” Absorbing all this feedback, Yan agrees not only that she is too direct but that this is prob­ably the result of her time in Amer­ic­ a: “I understand that sometimes [the] American way of communicating may be too direct [and] hurts ­people without ­really knowing it, and I think that this is something that, um, no ­matter as [an] American or me studying in Amer­i­ca and adopting that [I] should be more [considerate]. . . . ​So, I do feel sorry if I [am] too harsh [and] make you uncomfortable. . . . ​­You’re not the first one who [has] said sometimes my comments are too strong.” Thus, a­ fter all is said and done, Yan agrees that she may be too American in this conversation. But importantly, this is not her ac­cep­tance of having an American identity. Rather, it is an acknowl­edgment of her adoption of an American style of communication. In this documentary, this American style of communication becomes something anyone can adopt. According to Yu, it is what she used in her conflict with Mercedes over her belief that Mercedes was acting superior to the Chinese students. Yu opens her accusations with “I think I should use the American way of communication to make ­things ­simple.” And, in her ­later reflection on this conflict, Yu states that this American communication style made her “very straight forward, very frank . . . ​very aggressive.” ­Here, “American style of communication” stands for a number of conflicting ideas. When Yan and Yu say they are influenced by the American style of communication they mean they are speaking in a direct and aggressive style that is distinct from the mildness of Chinese ­people’s verbal interactions with each other. But this mildness is perhaps more of a ste­reo­type than real­ity, more

76

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

aspirational than ­actual. As Colin S. Hawes and Shuyu Kong point out, in the post-­socialist reform era “­there has been a significant increase in social conflict.”57 This social conflict appears in a number of dif­fer­ent arenas of Chinese society, including real­ity tele­vi­sion, in which bad be­hav­ior and emotional outbursts are pre­sent despite government restriction and public disapproval. In their discussion of Chinese real­ity “mediation shows,” Hawes and Kong describe shows where participants “[lose] their temper, [shout] at their ­family members, [burst] into tears, or even [kneel] on the ground begging the mediators for help.”58 Thus, the Chinese Communist Party promoted a “harmonious society” campaign to reduce the discord increasing in all levels of Chinese society. ­These students thus grew up with this harmonious ideology, listening to the mandate to respond to domestic and social conflict in less emotional and more positive ways.59 At the same time, the Chinese w ­ omen also deploy the American style of communication as a form of empowerment, as a method for standing up for themselves. In the context of an intimate strangers documentary, then, what is this embrace of the American style of communication if not an embrace of the American real­ity tele­vi­sion mode of engagement—an approach to communication that embraces and rewards frankness, aggressive be­hav­ior, and discord? For a generation of viewers familiar with Chinese real­ity tele­vi­sion, including its frowned-on dramatic emotional displays, how far of a stretch is it to draw on this be­hav­ior, especially with the recognition that you are operating in a context that values it and outside the constraints of Chinese cultural dictates? Outside of ­these constraints, Chinese participants can merge their real­ity tele­vi­sion house-­sharing be­hav­iors with Western ones, where directness and emotional display are rewarded pathways t­oward authenticity and personal transformation. On the one hand, this suggests the Chinese students’ misidentification of Crossing Borders Education’s documentary proj­ect for real­ity tele­vi­sion, but on the other hand, this is entirely warranted given the format of documentary the students found themselves participating in. Indeed, who could blame any of the students in Crossing Borders and The Dialogue—­American, Moroccan, or Chinese—­for playing the part of Western real­ity tele­vi­sion characters? Why w ­ ouldn’t they engage with their peers and the camera through a Western real­ity tele­vi­sion lens? As scholars argue, real­ity tele­vi­sion participants read real­ity tele­vi­sion formats to determine which identity to perform. Laura Grindstaff argues that “the context of production helps to set the scene and construct par­tic­ul­ar roles for participants to inhabit,” whereas Alison Hearn suggests “becoming part of the immersive tele­vi­sion experience involves adopting a ‘persona’ consistent with its dictates.”60 Even



Intercultural Communication 77

if it is against Crossing Borders Education’s best intentions, its mediating of intercultural communication in Crossing Borders and The Dialogue functions to mirror real­ity tele­vi­sion’s mediation of house-­sharing challenges and conflicts. ­Under conditions of intimacy and artificiality, difficult conversations among distinct personalities are socially engineered for both dramatic and pedagogic purposes. In Crossing Borders and The Dialogue, then, the students are only ­doing what the intimate strangers subgenre asks of them: to participate in this mediated laboratory—­here global rather than civic—­through emotional display, confrontation, self-­disclosure, and performativity. And, as in real­ity tele­vi­sion, the rewards are ­great—­visibility, legitimacy of one’s identity, and the opportunity to find one’s au­then­tic self.

Conclusion The Western framing of ­these documentaries, both by their producers and by their participants, offers impor­tant lessons about global media and scholarly analyses of it. Specifically, while it is vital to attend to differences of local contexts, it is also essential to be attentive to the traffic between local and global contexts across genres, participants, and producers. This is particularly true for real­ity tele­vi­sion, whose formats and rhe­toric circulate widely, resisting easy national identification. As Graeme Turner argues, “Even as they are modified and localized, [transnational real­ity tele­vi­sion formats] trade in constructions of cultural identities that gain at least part of their appeal from the pervasiveness of their own global circulation: that is, they are widely recognizable modes of pre­sen­ta­tions of the self that have become disconnected from any social or cultural context.”61 In the case of Crossing Borders and The Dialogue, while they feature a diverse cast of characters with dif­fer­ent televisual experiences, the cast members are nonetheless a generation that has grown up accustomed to unscripted tele­vi­sion, including house-­sharing models. For all the national variance of ­these house-­sharing models, they all speak to some notion of authenticity, specifically how the combination of the camera and intimacy among strangers enables the visibility of new, better, more au­then­tic self—­however politicized or not in one’s culture. Something happens, then, when all ­these students with their dif­fer­ent understandings of the intimate strangers format are ­housed together u­ nder its conditions. To be sure, each participant brings to the documentaries’ house-­sharing contexts his or her own cultural ideas about the mediation of the au­then­tic self. But t­ hese cultural ideas ­don’t live in a vacuum and can migrate back and forth between

78

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

local and transnational perspectives, ­either by participants themselves or by producers. Just how much of this migration occurs in Crossing Borders and The Dialogue has been the subject of this inquiry. Equally impor­tant to this inquiry is the more complicated question of how far real­ity tele­vi­sion rhe­toric has altered nonmediated conversations about national, cultural, and social differences among diverse groups. If, as Annette Hill argues, real­ity tele­vi­sion is a “feral genre” that is “de-­territorial in its ability to cross generic bound­aries,” “wildly opportunistic in its desire to attract popu­lar viewers around the world,” and “resistant to containment,” it is critical to pay attention to the consequences of its viral nature.62 I agree with Turner, who writes, “The impact that the cultural identities represented on tele­vi­sion have on the world outside tele­vi­sion is obviously difficult (maybe impossible) to assess . . . ​but it does seem to me that more needs to be done to find a way of understanding the complexities of the pro­cess b­ ecause it does appear likely that, on balance, ­there may well be consequences.”63 For Turner, the consequences could be considerable; he won­ders with concern if real­ity tele­vi­sion modes of engagement w ­ ill become the blueprint for interpersonal interactions in the nonmediated world. In turn, June Deery suggests that real­ ity tele­vi­sion grammar is already “overlaying lived experience,” although she argues that negative consequences of this cross-­pollination are not necessarily a given.64 Indeed, the consequences of real­ity tele­vi­sion’s influence on communication across cultural divides may be not only harmless but also productive, validating participants’ emotional selves and their right to confront difficult situations. In the context of study abroad, then, Crossing Borders and The Dialogue suggest that intercultural competency may be pos­si­ble, but the path ­toward achieving it may increasingly be framed through real­ity tele­vi­sion optics: argumentative, highly emotional, and performative. W ­ hether this is productive for intercultural communication, and the empathy it seeks to develop across cultural divides, remains to be seen. In the meantime, Crossing Borders and The Dialogue are most valuable not as examples of the challenges of and pathways t­ oward successful intercultural communication, but rather as impor­ tant examples of how intercultural communication is already framed for us before we even unpack our suitcases.

3 ◆ HOUSE HUNTERS INTERNATIONAL Homestay Movies in the Digital Era

In “A Study Abroad Homestay in Morocco,” a three-­minute video produced by the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE), two young w ­ omen sit on a hammock in a lovely garden where, framed in a medium shot, they share information about their study abroad. “The greatest ­thing about Morocco is our f­ amily,” one of the students says, further explaining: “­They’re so welcoming. ­They’re so much fun and I definitely ­don’t feel like a visitor. I ­don’t feel like someone who is just coming by for the summer. I feel like a part of the ­family. I eat with the kids. We go to the beach with the kids. And we go on walks. And, even though I c­ an’t ­really communicate like 100 ­percent with the f­ amily, it d­ oesn’t ­matter. It d­ oesn’t ­matter at all. Th ­ ey’re still my ­family.” Just how much of a ­family they are is further revealed by the second student, who details: “­Every Friday, every­one gets together with their ­family and it includes all your extended ­family, so all the aunts and ­uncles and cousins and every­one comes over. . . . ​Every­one sits around the t­ able together and every­one gets their own spoon and you just eat [the couscous] right out of the tagine that they cooked it in so y­ ou’re sharing the same bowl as every­ one ­else in your ­family and talking and eating together. So, it’s a ­really ­great experience.” During this conversation, cutaways offer visual evidence of the students’ experiences. Interspersed between the students’ accounts are images of the young w ­ omen on a f­amily trip to the beach, as well as in a large, airy home surrounded by smiling c­ hildren, dancing ­women, musicians, and a t­ able of traditional Moroccan cuisine. The students are clearly shown to be cared 79

80

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

for; they are welcomed into the ­family, sated with delicious food, and taken on f­amily outings. And though the p­ eople and rituals are culturally specific, the concept and feelings evoked are familiar. The images ­here clearly suggest ­family cele­bration. ­These ­family gatherings could be a Fourth of July cele­ bration or a Thanksgiving feast. This aura of familiarity is what makes the strange and exotic comfortable. Indeed, though the students suggest that eating out of a collective bowl on “couscous Friday initially overwhelmed them,” they are comfortable with the practice b­ ecause of the concept of f­amily: “­You’re f­ amily. You d­ on’t need plates,” affirms one of the students.1 This video, available on CIEE’s YouTube channel, works to promote one of the most revered practices in study abroad: the homestay. Among thought leaders in the field, living with a host f­ amily—­rather than in a dormitory—is regarded as the best method for linguistic and cultural immersion into a foreign culture. Though this truism is underresearched and not without debate, it remains, as Wenhao Diao, Barbara Freed, and Leigh Smith point out, one of the “prevalent, if sometimes undocumented, assumptions associated with living and learning abroad.”2 Common wisdom in the field is that students ­will have a less insular experience, acclimate better, and learn more staying with a host f­amily who w ­ ill speak to them in their native tongue and offer helpful advice about navigating a new culture. In turn, students seeking study abroad information are informed by popu­lar study abroad lit­er­a­ture that “a homestay can provide [them] with a learning experience like no other: the opportunity to gain firsthand knowledge of what f­amily life is like in another culture . . . ​ [and] the chance to get to know p­ eople from the host culture on a much deeper level than you would in your daily encounters.”3 This chapter explores the mediation of the venerable homestay by study abroad stakeholders. In par­tic­u­lar, this chapter focuses on what I call “homestay movies,” a subgenre of online study abroad videos that is devoted to the experience of living with a host ­family in a foreign country. Produced by both study abroad vendors and the students who travel u­ nder their aegis, homestay movies appear in ­great numbers on YouTube. Some of ­these videos are short documentaries sponsored by study abroad organ­izations and universities. ­Others, in the form of vlog diaries, video montages, and home tours, are created and uploaded by individual student travelers. YouTube’s search engine makes no distinction between producers, with vendor and student videos occupying the same digital and conceptual space. Nor does YouTube distinguish between nationality of student travelers. American students’ homestay videos share digital real estate with homestay videos produced by students from other countries, which are often interchangeable with their American



House Hunters International 81

counter­parts. In all of ­these production contexts, the camera is turned on homestay spaces and host families, which become the subjects of a dif­fer­ent kind of home movie. However, as this chapter demonstrates, depending on which stakeholder is ­behind the camera—­study abroad vendor or student traveler—­homestay movies express dif­fer­ent registers of home and ­family. To promote homestays, study abroad vendors adopt the hoary ideologies and practices of what Patricia R. Zimmermann calls home movie “familialism,” h­ ere characterized by attentive foreign parents, nutritional sustenance, and inclusion in ­family activities, as well as draw on real estate tele­vi­sion’s staging of the perfect home. In contrast, student-­produced videos reveal the homestay through an antifamilialist lens, characterized by aloneness, self-­sufficiency, and isolation from the ­family unit. Yet despite their differences, both vendor and student homestay movies draw on similar appeals. In par­tic­u­lar, this chapter argues that, even as foreign homestays are championed by study abroad stakeholders based on the belief that cultural immersion and its emphasis on separation from home culture and f­amily ­will foster greater learning, visual repre­sen­ta­ tions of homestays by both students and vendors paradoxically work to narrow the gap between homestay and home of origin. In spite of its camera trained on a foreign home, homestay movies, I argue, are more about connecting students homeward than orienting them abroad. While this may seem incongruous with study abroad’s goals of promoting cultural immersion through homestays, Jennie Germann Molz points out that the orientation t­ oward home i­ sn’t unusual for travel narratives, in which home is often an “absent presence.”4 She suggests that, “in a world of unrelenting physical and virtual movement”—­fueled by ever-­increasing international travel, global migration, and transnational media—­“home becomes a signifier not only for the normative stability of a par­tic­u­lar place or for the transportable sentiments of comfort, security, familiarity, and control, but also for a way of being and belonging in the world as a w ­ hole.”5 But while “feeling at home in mobility” is often evoked in and through traveler narratives, in an era of unequal access to and starkly dif­fer­ent motivations for global mobility, she argues that it is imperative to “[pay] close attention to the context and conditions ­under which . . . ​travelers are able to make themselves at home in mobility and in the world.”6 This chapter does just this. Closely reading homestay videos alongside discourses around cultural immersion in the digital age, theories of the tourist gaze, and visual rhe­toric of the mediated home across documentary forms, I show how homestay videos attempt to diminish threats to the self attendant to cultural immersion and cultural difference. In ­doing

82

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

so, homestay videos not only undermine the idea of cultural immersion central to study abroad rhe­toric, but do so by opening up the foreign home to global exposure.

Mobile Home Movies As long as ­there has been filmmaking technology available to the amateur consumer ­there have been home movies.7 Over the course of the twentieth ­century, countless home movies have been produced in backyards and living rooms, and the production of home movies continues to be a major pastime in the twenty-­first ­century. Writing in the relatively early days of YouTube, Michael Strangelove notes that 67 ­percent of the videos in YouTube’s “Most Viewed (All Time)” category feature f­amily and domestic space.8 However, as Strangelove observes, the con­temporary customs and methods of home movie practices are completely upended in the digital era, “represent[ing] a disruption in the cultural patterns of analogue (film-­based) home movies . . . ​ [and] introducing us to new patterns and styles of repre­sen­ta­tions.”9 Unlike the previous analog era, in which home movies ­were primarily exhibited domestically to f­ amily and friends, home movies now have a global reach via digital platforms. Furthermore, home movies are no longer solely framed through the ideology of familialism, which Patricia R. Zimmermann describes as “the transference of the integrated ­family unit as a logical social structure onto other activities.”10 According to Zimmermann, ideologies and practices of familialism governed home movies in the twentieth c­entury through an emphasis on “­family relations above other kinds of social or po­liti­cal interactions.”11 As parental control over home movie practice has weakened alongside ­children’s ability to shape ­family narratives through their own personal devices, so too has familialism as its governing mode, with the mediated home becoming less staged and sanitized. In this context, home movies are no longer bound by what Roger Odin calls “the familial institution’s prohibitions and impositions on repre­sen­ta­tion” that ­were once used to construct “a euphoric vision of ­family life,” including the refusal “to represent anything shocking and embarrassing (the intimate),” the rejection of “a pessimistic view of ­family life (illness, suffering, misery),” and the exclusion of any repre­ sen­ta­tion “threatening to the image of the ideal f­amily (house­hold scenes, parent-­child conflicts, familial dramas).”12 Instead, as Strangelove points out, with youth at the helm, the images of the ideal f­ amily that once governed home movies—­family rituals, leisure activities, and milestones—­are now accom-



House Hunters International 83

panied by edgier repre­sen­ta­tions of the home. T ­ oday, home movies on YouTube feature every­thing from ­children filming intoxicated parents to siblings verbally abusing one another to ­family members on toilets.13 This expanded vision of the home is not simply the result of new forms of authorship. It is also concomitant with technological developments in amateur equipment. As James M. Moran outlines, celluloid technology—­marked by its expense, lack of sound, and need for lighting equipment—­limited most home movie prac­ti­tion­ers to producing highly staged iconic imagery, often in outdoor settings. In contrast, analog video’s “low cost, extended recording time, and capacity to be recycled substantially increase[d] the potential range and volume of events and be­hav­iors recorded during home mode production.” With this new aesthetic freedom, videos in the “home-­mode” began to feature more quotidian activities, be­hav­ior, and emotions.14 This banality of home video practice has further increased in the digital era’s culture of surveillance, in which we willingly participate in the constant and ubiquitous mediation of our everyday lives.15 Just as amateur filmmakers of the past took their equipment on f­amily vacations—­enabling the creation of what Devin Orgeron calls “mobile home movies”—­video camera equipment, now in the form of cell phones or digital cameras, goes on vacations with families in the pre­sent.16 Travel home movies are well represented on YouTube, with numerous pages dedicated to all manner of ­family getaways, from amusement parks to cruises to Eu­ro­pean vacations. Instead of through the lens of familialism, YouTube’s travel-­themed home movies feature families in all sorts of social and po­liti­cal activities. ­Today’s mobile home movies are just as likely to feature two male partners traveling with their ­adopted ­daughter to the March on Washington as they are to feature a heterosexual-­led ­family in a suburban backyard.17 Th ­ ese con­ temporary travel home movies thus remind us that the mediated home is harnessed for multiple purposes.

Selling the Homestay While in study abroad scholarship the benefits of homestays are often linked to greater cultural immersion and linguistic development, as demonstrated by CIEE’s “A Study Abroad Homestay in Morocco,” study abroad promotional rhe­toric primarily draws on tropes of familialism to make homestays attractive. This is largely through repre­sen­ta­tions of the homestay site as a nurturing, celebratory, and apo­liti­cal space. In study abroad rhe­toric, home is not

84

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

connected to any of the negative experiences that drive young ­people away from it, such as vio­lence, inequity, boredom, and parental control—­factors that lead to what Mary Douglas calls the “tyranny of the home.”18 Instead, the rhe­toric of home in study abroad promotional discourse evokes what Gwendolyn Wright calls the “model home.” According to Wright, “­Every society tends to approach home and f­ amily with an implicit ideal about both, an inspiration si­mul­ta­neously universal and quite par­tic­u­lar, at once architectural and cultural. . . . ​The model home functions as a power­ful ideology within a society, in part simply b­ ecause it seems so familiar and obvious, so accessible and desirable. An object and ideal, seemingly without controversy, this notion of home contains and obscures innumerable conflicts.”19 Thus, as Wright continues, “one speaks quite easily of ‘the American dream home’ or the ‘traditional’ Dogon ­houses in Mali.”20 ­These model homes—­born within cultures and from individual fantasies—­also come replete with certain social scripts about who lives inside them. Like the model home, the model study abroad home is also framed through appeals to both particularity and universality. At the same time that the homestay is depicted as culturally specific through cuisine, costume, or traditions (e.g., “couscous Friday”), it is also depicted as a universal space of comfort, nurturance, and ac­cep­tance, replete with home-­cooked meals, benevolent siblings, and parental concern. Despite differences in vendors and host culture location, most study abroad promotional videos share this traffic between the par­tic­ul­ ar and the universal in their model home rhe­toric. For example, in IES Abroad’s promotional video “Rio/Homestays/This Is Study Abroad,” two students, Elma from Ithaca College and Nikki from the University of South Carolina, are framed in a medium shot on a floral couch in a nicely appointed living room decorated with flowers and h­ ouse plants. Discussing their experience in their homestay in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, they recount to an off-­screen interviewer how happy they are with their home and host ­mother: Elma: I ­really love this homestay. I think we got ­really lucky with [our host mom]. We love her. She gives us ­great food and she’s ­really nice. And the good ­thing, which we thought in the beginning would be kind of a wall between us [is that] she d­ oesn’t speak En­glish. . . . ​I think that’s ­great b­ ecause we get to practice our Portuguese. Nikki: It ­wasn’t like we w ­ ere just living h­ ere. . . . ​The first ­couple of weeks we w ­ ere ­here, [she] walked us to the bank . . . ​walked us to the grocery store . . . ​taught us how to recharge our phone . . . ​and she r­ eally just put in . . . ​so much effort to make us feel at home. . . . ​She installed air conditioning for us ­because she goes,



House Hunters International 85

‘Oh I heard air conditioning is r­ eally big in Amer­i­ca.’ She ­really just went above and beyond to make us feel at home ­here. Elma: ­We’re super lucky with our homestay mom. We’ve r­eally enjoyed ourselves . . . ​living h­ ere and having this parent figure with us who we can go to for advice, for questions for like everyday ­things, like what bus should I take to go ­here and she just knows or she just figures our prob­lems out. . . . ​And the food’s ­great so I ­can’t r­ eally complain about anything! Nikki: She r­ eally took us in as, like, part of her f­amily. She introduced us to all of her friends. We’ve gone out with her nephew a few times and he takes us to ­these hole-­in-­the-­wall restaurants in Rio that we would have never found.21

As Elma and Nikki speak, several images work to confirm their experience. Elma’s claim about being well fed is corroborated by the appearance of her host ­mother, who walks by the camera carry­ing dishes. ­W hether she is on her way to set a ­table for a meal or returning freshly washed dishes to storage, this cameo suggests a benevolent m ­ other always at the ready to provide sustenance. In turn, Elma’s and Nikki’s statements about feeling like their host mom is a parent figure is visually confirmed via an insert of a portrait of all three ­women sitting on a couch. Framed with the “considerable deliberation” of ­family photo­ graphs described by Richard Chalfen, the portrait features the host mom between the two students, her arm around Nikki and her hand on Elma’s knee.22 Placing the host ­mother in this fashion imbues her with a maternal aesthetic, implying her careful watch and protection of her young wards. But not too protective; this image of a watchful parent is complemented by a cutaway of both students lounging in their clean and brightly lit room, revealing that they have plenty of in­de­pen­dence and space for themselves. Alongside an establishing shot of a beautiful apartment building set among trees, ­these images showcase a model study abroad home, one with a doting host mom and comfortable American-­style accommodations. Familial warmth and support are also central themes of “Live in a DIS Homestay,” a five-­minute promotional video that features four students living with three dif­fer­ent host families in Copenhagen, Denmark.23 The video opens with portrait shots of the students with their host families, showcasing three very dif­fer­ent types of homestays available through the Danish Institute for Study Abroad. In a beautiful sunroom overlooking a landscaped garden, Tamara and Marina, students from Denison University and Carleton College, appear flanked by their host parents, Christa and Henning, an older white ­couple. This shot is followed by a portrait shot of Steven, a student from St. Olaf College, in front of a rural ­house with his host dad, Henrik, both men

86

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

wearing matching Denmark sports jerseys. The last ­family portrait image is of the Andersens, a large mixed-­race ­family of seven, standing in front of their modest home with their host student Conor, a student from the University of Colorado, Boulder. Th ­ ese ­family portraits are followed by interviews with both the students and their host families about the value of a homestay. Together, the interviews offer similar themes as the other vendor videos, with idyllic ­family scenarios at the center. Having debated w ­ hether to live in the city so he could have a “typical student experience,” Conor ultimately chose to live with a host ­family. His story is about the joy of having five siblings, a sentiment both he and his siblings articulate to the off-­screen interviewer: Host ­s ister: So when a new student comes, we always take the new student into our f­ amily and we get a new big b­ rother. Host ­b rother: To me it means a lot to have an older ­brother from the US. I can talk to him about ­things I d­ on’t say to my s­ ister and my mom. Conor: It’s ­really cool to have five ­little kids who look up to you and want to hang out with you all the time and just kinda being a kid again.

The joy of siblinghood detailed in t­ hese interviews is further established via cutaways to Conor playing with the c­ hildren, watching TV with his siblings, attending cultural events, and cooking with the f­amily. This f­amily, then, is the ideal big ­family, with sibling relationships marked by harmony and cooperation rather than acrimony and jealousy. Steven’s host f­ amily is quite dif­fer­ent from Conor’s, but no less ideal in its pre­sen­ta­tion of ­family dynamics. Instead of a large ­family, Steven is placed with a single host f­ ather. Should the prospective student watching this video have concerns about a homestay with ­limited ­family, the viewer soon learns that Steven and Henrik bond over both being “very active,” which their matching sports jerseys attests. Steven informs the viewer that he and Henrik enjoy rock climbing and kayaking together, which is corroborated in the video by the two men shown kayaking on a gorgeous lake. This story, then, is a gendered one of father-­son bonding. While Steven i­sn’t immersed into a big ­family like Conor, he gets a host dad all to himself. In the proverbial American cliché, this is the ­father who is never too busy to throw a ball in the yard with his son. And lest we forget that this is a male bonding narrative, as Steven talks about enjoying his homestay, the video cuts to images of him chopping wood for the fire. Unlike Conor’s experience, Steven’s life with Henrik ­isn’t about domesticity. Th ­ ere are no scenes of cooking or eating. Rather,



House Hunters International 87

Steven’s activities mostly take place outdoors, with chopping wood and tending to the wood-­burning stove the only domestic chores he engages in. Conversely, ­family togetherness through food—­cooking and eating—is central to the theme of Tamara and Marina’s homestay. Christa, their host mom, tells the viewer, “It’s very impor­tant that [the students] get familiar with the kitchen b­ ecause they feel more at home,” while their host dad talks about the importance of scheduled mealtime. He says, “We intend very much to eat [together] at least once a day, mostly dinner in the eve­nings.” Should the prospective student be concerned that this is too controlling, both students discuss the importance of ­family mealtime. Tamara says, “­After, like, a ­really busy day you can look forward to having this long meal,” whereas Marina offers, “We tell each other about our day. We have coffee [and] cake so it’s more of like a homey experience rather than just eat and go.” But while ­family time is valued, ­family members also confirm that the students have complete autonomy over their lives. The host mom tells the viewer, “We consider them grown up. And we tell them you can go out and come home when you want as long as you call if you d­ on’t come home.” Marina confirms this: “We have our own space and they have their own space and of course we come together as a f­ amily. But when we need our space we have it.” Their space is, of course, shown to be as clean, spacious, and well appointed as the rest of the ­house. Like the host mom in “Rio/Homestays/This Is Study Abroad,” Christa and Henning are the best pos­si­ble parents of young adults: they offer architectural security, sustenance through meals, the benefits of a well-­equipped home, and concern without control. Though all of ­these homes are shown to be quite dif­fer­ent—­the culinary tradition of “couscous Friday” in the Moroccan homestay is, for example, quite dif­fer­ent from Christa and Henning’s quiet dinner t­ able in Copenhagen—­all of the promotional videos equally advance home movie familialism in which apo­liti­cal versions of ­family togetherness, gendered bonding, ­family meals, and parental guidance are the norm. This traffic between the par­tic­u­lar and the universal is, as Michael Strangelove notes, common in the world of online home videos. In their portrayals of the mundane to the celebratory moments of home life, they “often capture the par­tic­u­lar and idiosyncratic character of ourselves and our local culture while also reminding us of the universal nature of everyday lives.”24 Strangelove’s research indicates that the universal nature of online home movies is far more accepted by viewers than the par­ tic­u­lar and the idiosyncratic. His analy­sis of viewer comments about home movies on YouTube reveals that “the online audience often identifies with the

88

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

pre­sen­ta­tion of the universal while recoiling from local cultures that are not part of the mainstream.”25 This explains why, even as we would expect students seeking homestay opportunities in foreign countries to be less apprehensive about the cultural differences central to a foreign homestay, the seemingly universal aspects of home and f­ amily—­mealtime, sibling play, ­family activity—­ far outweigh the cultural particularities in study abroad promotional videos. Economic ­factors certainly account for the tropes of familialism pre­sent in promotional homestay movies. As both commitment to and desire for study abroad have grown in tandem with globalization, so too have third-­party study abroad providers seeking revenue streams from American students. Nonprofit, for-­profit, and university-­based programs, foreign universities, multisite organ­izations, and smaller niche programs all compete in the marketplace of education abroad. To attract students, Tayla Zemach-­Bersin argues, advertisers “have sacrificed defining study abroad in progressive and critical turns.” Instead, she argues, they appeal to “American students’ sense of entitlement, consumerism, and individualism.”26 Sarah  C. Bishop’s analy­sis of provider websites confirms this, revealing that providers frame the study abroad experience with lofty promises of easy cultural immersion, exotic yet transposable cultural difference, and dramatic personal transformation.27 The familialism of promotional homestay videos thus joins ­these advertising tropes in an effort to entice prospective students. At the same time, the specific nature of home movies also contributes to vendors’ prioritization of universal themes. As a genre, the home movie was historically designed to be screened to friends and ­family within the domestic sphere. This exhibition context enabled viewers to make sense of home movies, whose occasional lack of narrative and aesthetic continuity might other­wise impede coherence. As Nico de Klerk argues, “It is in the conversations among ­family members that a home movie or series of home movies is made into a meaningful ­whole.”28 Families are able to take the snippets of home life—­often edited without regard for spatial or temporal continuity—­ and fill in the larger context. Viewed by friends and ­family, images of ­children playing in a pool are understood as images of a d­ aughter’s tenth birthday party; screened in the domestic realm, images of a young man at a piano are understood as images of a cousin playing ­music. As the contents of home movies become more obscure as they pass down through generations or find new audiences in archives, yard sales, and the digital arena, de Klerk points out that “they undergo changes in coherence and meaning.”29 Without original interpreters, original meanings become elusive and indeterminate. To compensate for this, long-­standing visual practices of



House Hunters International 89

home movies invite viewers into a shared sense of home. Patricia R. Zimmermann’s historical research reveals that, guided by amateur filmmaking manuals, advertisements, Hollywood visual logic, and ­family magazines, home movies developed “narrative codes” that “negotiated universal audience comprehension, translating the extremely isolated, idiosyncratic activities of the nuclear ­family to a wider audience.”30 ­These codes include the now common visual tropes of home movies—­birthdays, holidays, vacations, ­family meals, ­children playing—­that, as de Klerk details, “may be conceived of as ‘standing in’ for nonparticipants’ memories.”31 In their depictions of happy familial environments, study abroad promotional home movies do just this. They blend the celluloid home movie’s focus on impor­tant events and rituals (e.g., “couscous Friday,” f­amily dinner, cultural activities) with the analog and digital home video’s focus on the more mundane aspects of daily living (e.g., slicing and washing vegetables, lounging on homestay beds, horsing around with host siblings). In ­doing so, they provide viewers who are biologically, socially, and temporally disconnected from the p­ eople presented in the homestay movies with the narrative codes needed to translate the domestic scene into one that perspective students can slot themselves into.

Staging the Homestay In addition to drawing on the lineage of home movie familialism to shape the study abroad homestay, vendor homestay movies also share similarities with the visual depictions of homes seen in real estate tele­vi­sion. Specifically, promotional homestay movies bear a relationship to the House Hunters franchise (HGTV, 1999–), which includes at least fifteen spin-­offs, such as House Hunters International and House Hunters Renovation. To be sure, House Hunters and study abroad promotional videos on YouTube are worlds apart in terms of both audience and premise. Yet their shared goals of staging the perfect home and ­family for the consumer and viewer, albeit who are differently configured for a cable tele­vi­sion program or a YouTube video, offer valuable insights into how consumers and viewers are enticed through the visually staged home. In “Realty Real­ity: HGTV and the Subprime Crisis,” Shawn Shimpach suggests that staging real estate “allows home buyers to imagine their own inhabitation of a space. This means effacing the ­actual, current status of the property (owned by the seller) by producing a preferred, ­future status (inhabited by the buyer). Staging does not show off how the home has been lived in,

90

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

but how it might be. The spaces of the home are staged specifically to show potential buyers the most pleasing and desirable arrangement, regardless of how attainable or livable that arrangement might actually prove to be.”32 In House Hunters, staging takes the form of furniture rearrangements, lighting considerations, removal of clutter, and coached interviews of ­house buyers. Staging is also accomplished through minimal and often quite static camera work. As Shimpach argues, the point of this staging is “to invite temporary inhabitation of the space rendered before the camera. Sequences like this are not about watching tele­vi­sion, they are about seeing into someone’s home. Extremely slow pans, tilts, or zoom-­outs constitute all the movement, so that home viewers may scan the screen for a full image of the room.”33 This staging helps the viewer at home follow along with the consumer on-­screen to judge not only ­whether the on-­screen buyer made the right choice but also ­whether they would have made that choice too. The lesson that House Hunters imparts from this game is that consumers always make the right choice. As Shimpach demonstrates, its textual strategies erase the risk and l­abor of the choice to buy, offering the ideal home for all who want to participate. The on-­ screen buyer is always thrilled with the new purchase: “While difficult financial conditions are sometimes referenced . . . ​the new home o­ wners at the end of each episode are never exposed as suddenly underwater, surprised by mortgage terms, or other­wise fiscally or emotionally unequipped to enjoy their role as new home ­owners. Neither are they ever revealed to be displeased with (or disliked by) new neighbors, dissatisfied with schools, or unwelcome in the neighborhood. In House Hunters, buyer’s remorse does not exist. ­Every purchased home is always exactly what buyers needed and wanted, and they could never be happier with their choice.”34 Through its happy on-­screen homebuyers, its staged homes ready for occupancy, and its easy transition into a new home space, the ending of House Hunters thus offers viewers a story about risk-­free homeownership. Even as the risk and l­abor involved in home purchasing have entered the picture with House Hunters Renovation, in which home buyers take on emotionally draining, labor-­intensive, and expensive renovation proj­ects, the rewards always outweigh the risk and cost when a beautifully remodeled and staged home always appears at the end. Similarly, the promotional study abroad home video offers a risk-­free homestay through its staged spaces. Instead of the vacant spaces of real estate programming, homestay staging showcases perfectly occupied homes: rooms are clean and brightly lit, the t­ ables are brimming with food, and families happily join together for play. Just as the larger considerations of home buying are erased on House Hunters, any of the concerns about study abroad homestays



House Hunters International 91

that students should think about are erased or minimized in vendor videos. Questions about differing gender expectations across cultures, ­house rules, host parents’ work schedules, eating habits, guest policy, loneliness and alienation from the host f­amily, and homestay conflicts are not part of t­ hese stories. Instead, student representatives in ­these videos make it clear that their choice to do a homestay was the right one. And, as in House Hunters, it ­isn’t just the homestay that was the right choice, but their par­tic­u­lar homestay. In “Rio/Homestays/This Is Study Abroad” the students talk about being “­really lucky” they ended up with their par­tic­u­lar host mom, while in “Live in a DIS Homestay” the students all appear to be provided with the perfect ­family match. Though, unlike home buyers on HGTV, ­these students ­didn’t get to choose their home, by underscoring the fact that the study abroad students are in the perfect homestay environments, the videos suggest that they may as well have. Ultimately, though, t­hese videos are less about choice—­the answer to ­whether to do a homestay is obviously yes in all of them—­than about setting up homestay expectations. As in shows like House Hunters, the viewer is more likely than not visually literate enough to know that ­these videos are staged. Nevertheless, as Shimpach argues, “house hunters increasingly expect—­ indeed desire—to view homes that have been thoughtfully staged. It is a pleasant, if transparent, and yet effective, deception. . . . ​It provoke[s] an imagination of the f­ uture. It makes the possibility of occupancy not only thinkable but desirable.”35 Indeed, looking at the clean study abroad bedrooms in “Rio/ Homestays/This Is Study Abroad” and “Live in a DIS Homestay,” prospective study abroad students, many of whom are still teen­agers, are apt to spot the con. But the videos work like staged televisual homes by offering students the ability to imagine themselves around the dinner t­ able with a loving f­ amily or lounging around a spacious and always tidy room. In a study abroad landscape in which many dif­fer­ent kinds of homes and host families exist, this staging of the model homestay is clearly useful. But this is only one vision of the study abroad homestay. Homestay movies produced by students tell a dif­fer­ent story about the study abroad home and f­ amily.

Home Alone While promotional homestay movies are replete with happy families cooking and cooperating together, student producers of homestay movies routinely depict the space of the homestay through a less picture-­perfect lens, rejecting

92

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

the artificiality of both study abroad promotional videos and real estate programming. In par­tic­ul­ar, student homestay movies are often shot in the form of home tours of unoccupied h­ ouses or h­ ouses with minimal h­ uman activity. Host ­family homes are neither filled with lively ­human activity nor shown in their tidiest states. Instead of staged homes, kitchen sinks are full of dishes from previous meals, students’ beds are unmade and covered with clothing, and common spaces are strewn with younger host siblings’ toys. Moreover, unlike the efficient editing in the promotional videos, student-­produced homestay tours test viewers’ patience as they tediously detail living spaces. This difference in editing style reflects an overall difference in visual style between vendor-­produced and student-­produced videos. Though promotional homestay videos range in production value, even the most rudimentary vendor videos generally feature a modicum of filmmaking skills that student homestay tour videos do not. Typically filmed by students with l­imited camera skills, student homestay tours tend to feature poor lighting, disorienting camerawork, and occasional inaudible narration. Thus, though vendor-­produced and student-­produced homestay videos occupy the same digital and conceptual space, they offer viewers very dif­fer­ent accounts of the same experience. The most striking difference about t­ hese videos is how devoid of h­ umans they are. Occasionally we see members of the host ­family, with whom the student ­behind the camera sometimes interacts, but more often than not they appear only briefly during the tour, most often in unexpected cameos. For example, in “My Homestay in Japan: D,” as the homestay visitor is giving her tour of the kitchen, she walks by her host mom, who is sitting on a stool in front of the stove.36 Aware of the camera, the Japa­nese host mom straightens her back and flashes the camera a peace sign, a common symbol used in East Asian camera snapshots, before the student passes her by. In “My Homestay House in Japan,” a student passes by his Western ­house­mate and Japa­ nese host mom, who briefly say hello to the camera before the student moves on to the rest of the tour.37 While t­ hese students seem generally comfortable filming their host f­ amily members, other students appear mildly sheepish at being caught taking video of their host families’ homes. In “Tour of Host ­Family’s Home,” a young man passes by his Taiwanese host ­mother during his tour. When she asks in her native tongue what he is d­ oing, he stumbles over his words and uncomfortably responds in En­glish that he is “recording a video.”38 Sarah is equally awkward when caught filming in “Sarah’s Tour of Her Host F ­ amily’s Home in Austria.” When she overhears someone in the ­house during her tour, she ner­vously giggles and then preemptively shouts to an unseen member of her host f­amily: “I’m giving a tour of the h­ ouse.”39 In



House Hunters International 93

both cases, ­whether host ­family members appear on camera or accidentally intrude on the student’s filming, they are neither prominently featured nor interacted with. Instead, host f­ amily members appear as one of many components of the ­house. Just as often, students take the opportunity to film the h­ ouse tour while their host families are absent, telling the viewer that the home’s unoccupied status is the reason they are filming. In “First Host ­Family Tour!!! Japan Rotary Youth Exchange (V-­Log #4),” the student tells the viewer she is filming b­ ecause her host dad and ­sister are gone at a piano lesson. She says, “I’m all by myself so I thought, ‘what a ­great opportunity.’ ”40 This statement reflects the general sense of illicitness of homestay movies. When the student producer of “Japan Exchange: First Host ­Family House” says “I’m gonna try and do this fast ­because my host ­family is about to come back,” she suggests that it might not be acceptable to film somebody e­ lse’s home.41 The same is the case for the student filmmaker of “Tour of My Japa­nese Host ­Family’s House.” In the publisher’s comment section on YouTube, she confesses to snooping when she says, “Since no one was home I took the opportunity to rec­ord what my ­family’s ­house looks like lol.”42 Indeed, some students recognize the potential for viewers to interpret their home tours as deceitful and work to assuage any concerns before or during the tour. At the beginning of her homestay tour, the student producer of “My Host ­Family’s Apartment Tour [2014] [Spain Edition]” assures her viewers: “My host f­ amily is letting me share it with you guys.”43 In turn, ­after explaining that she is filming her homestay ­because her Japa­nese host ­family is out, the student producer of “Host ­Family House Tour” explains her unsanctioned home tour with the following: “I d­ on’t think it’s very polite for me to vlog with them . . . ​and I have no idea how to explain [vlogging] in Japa­nese.”44 And in “Tour of Oaxacan Homestay!” the student explains to her viewers why she w ­ ill tour only her own guest­house, which is separate from her host mom’s home: “I ­haven’t been ­here that long so I ­don’t want to film the inside of the ­house. Sorry guys.”45 In the absence of a focus on the ­people who make up the home, what viewers see instead is an intense focus on ­house­hold objects, from appliances and furniture to toys and dishware. Sometimes this focus is exhaustive, as in “Spain Study Abroad #41 My Spain Homestay Tour,” in which, in six minutes, the student shows her viewers the following items in her homestay: the front door, the front door peephole, a light switch, the phone, mirrors, tchotchkes, umbrellas, the kitchen t­ able, the refrigerator, the refrigerator’s contents, the micro­wave, fruit, the dishwasher, the stove, cabinets, the laundry area, the kitchen sink, the toilet, and the tub.46 A similarly detailed series of items is

94

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

showcased in “My Host ­Family’s Korean Apartment.” In this homestay video, Sarah shows us the following items: shoes, the shoe closet, a couch, a portrait of her host ­family, clothes on a drying rack, towels, a clothes folding ­table, a bed, suitcases, a heater, coat hangers, closets, desks, a stuffed toy, a school bag, Korean books, cups, a magnet, and more.47 And in “Amanda in Japan: My Host F ­ amily’s House,” Amanda trains her camera on such items as a heater, a clothes rack, a child’s desk, a bed, win­dows, a closet, suitcases, a backpack, a rice maker, a ­kettle, and a washing machine.48 This intense focus on objects found in the home suggests that the students shape their homestay experiences in part through the “tourist gaze.” As I detail in the introduction to this book, the term “tourist gaze” was first used by the sociologist John Urry in 1990 to describe tourists’ patterns of looking, and ­later adapted by the media scholar Ellen Strain in order to analyze its mediated function and training beyond a­ ctual tourist experiences. From a so­cio­log­i­cal perspective, Urry writes of the centrality of vision to ­actual tourist experiences, practices, and memories. One of the common ways in which vision is central to tourism is through the promotion and collection of travel images, from the postcards, Kodak images, and celluloid home movies of the past to the digital photo­graphs and videos of the pre­sent. Indeed, as Urry, along with Carol Crawshaw, notes in a ­later essay, in most travel and tourist rhe­toric “­there is a par­tic­u­lar emphasis upon the seeing and collecting of sights,” such that the practice “can dominate the very pattern of travel, which is often or­ga­nized to facilitate fleeting views of spectacular scapes.”49 Whereas ­house­hold objects could hardly be called a spectacular collection of sights, both the unfamiliarity of certain items (e.g., Japanese-­style beds, Korean heated floor mats, Spanish blenders, views from win­dows) and the regularity of ­others, now surprisingly placed in a foreign context (“messy kitchen ­tables, they have them h­ ere too” says the student tour guide in “Tour of Host ­Family’s Home”), serve to imbue other­w ise banal ­house­hold items with collectable appeal. As Ellen Strain argues, this practice of collecting sights, what Crawshaw and Urry call the “visual appropriation of place,” is not an innocuous one.50 As her research details, the tourist gaze emerges as a mode of vision from the simultaneous development and intermingling of the moving image, mass travel, colonialism, capitalism, and classical anthropology in the late nineteenth ­century. According to Strain, t­ hese practices, all of which trafficked in each other’s technologies and biases, w ­ ere “enabled by Enlightenment thinking, which valorized vision as a mode of attaining knowledge and labeled the world as an appropriate object of knowledge.”51 The tourist gaze that stems



House Hunters International 95

from ­these cultural practices and discourses is thus imbued with its ideology: the world is knowable through seeing it, fixing it through repre­sen­ta­tion, and orienting ourselves in relation to it. Moreover, as Strain argues, the world is controllable through vision: “To view the world as being a ‘picture postcard’ is to attain the illusion of mastery through vision and aestheticized repre­sen­ ta­tion.”52 Thus, the tourist gaze, with its legitimization of knowing the world through images and its legacy of anthropological repre­sen­ta­tions of difference, may lead students to feel authorized and entitled to film foreign ­people, spaces, and objects as though they ­were designed for their consumption. Indeed, as Strain argues, this impulse to collect and know the world through images may be even stronger in our own era, in which a heightened and cynical awareness of image construction and postmodern challenges to notions of authenticity makes “the maintenance of such myths more essential.”53 To be sure, if anyone needs to believe in myths imbued by the tourist gaze, it is the traveler, whose pleas­ur­able journeys are often beset by a bewildering array of disorienting and incomprehensible cultural inputs that can cause anxiety and threats to one’s sense of self and culture. This is certainly true for study abroad homestay students, who are thrust into a foreign environment as si­mul­ta­neously a stranger and a f­ amily member. In the publisher’s section on YouTube, the student director of “My Homestay in Japan: D” attests to this anxiety. She offers an FAQ that answers several questions about her time abroad, including an answer to the frequently asked question “Why ­don’t you smile?” She responds: “This has been asked over 10 times now, so I ­will attempt to explain XD. Had no idea that my expression would be so notable to you guys. Like I said previously, I only stayed at their ­house for a short time, and so I ­didn’t ­really get use[d] to them. Staying at another person’s ­house makes me ner­vous, I often walk on eggshells when I d­ on’t need to due to past experiences. It is also partially due to my personality, and I have social anxiety, so getting used to ­people is hard. Along with this, I often forget to smile in pictures. Thanks for the concern, but I am fine, or at least working through it lol.”54 Though most homestay tour guides do not articulate their stress in homestay tours, this student’s anxiety about being in a stranger’s home is no doubt common. The tourist gaze, Ellen Strain argues, works to assuage ­these travel anx­i­eties. As I detail in the introduction, she argues that the touristic worldview requires “objectifying strategies” that enable plea­sure rather than discomfort in cultural difference. ­These strategies include essentializing, simplifying, exoticizing, unveiling, consuming, and collecting cultural difference through repre­ sen­ta­tion. ­These tactics help the real or virtual tourist occupy a position of

96

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

“distanced immersion,” which fulfills the desire for contact with foreign cultures while maintaining the separation needed for visual command of and physical refuge from cultural difference.55 Though the term the “tourist gaze” was not yet in circulation when Susan Sontag famously outlined the reassuring role of photography for the traveler, her argument, particularly the distancing function of the lens in its ability to create a barrier between the self and overwhelming experiences, reveals the mechanics of the tourist gaze. She writes: “A way of certifying experience, taking photo­graphs is also a way of refusing it—by limiting experience to a search for the photogenic, by converting experience into an image, a souvenir. . . . ​ The very activity of taking pictures is soothing, and assuages general feelings of disorientation that are likely to be exacerbated by travel.”56 This soothing pro­cess of taking pictures is part of what Ellen Strain suggests is the fetishization pro­cess that is at the heart of the tourist gaze. For Strain, the “uncomfortable weightlessness of culture shock” that threatens travelers’ sense of themselves and the world is fended off and deflected t­ oward less threatening fetish images that work to “strengthen the illusion of impenetrability, autonomy, and coherence” of the self.57 Strain argues that this pro­cess takes the shape of a visual fascination with the exotic whereby “conversion of perceived real­ity into spectacle is a defensive recitation designed to build armor against the constant nettling of subjectivity’s coherence.”58 The cultural arenas that trade in the tourist gaze—­tourism, visual culture, and popu­lar anthropology—­thus address and control this “constant nettling of subjectivity’s coherence” through images and narratives of exoticized ­people and landscapes. This fetishization pro­cess is hard at work in homestay movies. Of all the objects surveyed in homestay videos, by far ­those given the most narrative and visual attention are ­those that are most unfamiliar to student visitors. In an overwhelming number of homestay videos, the most common sites of fascination and objectification are toilets and bathing and laundry spaces. This is especially the case for Western students traveling in Japan, where toilets are highly technologized and bathing rituals differ from what many students are used to. For most students, ­these technologies and rituals are major stops on their tour, and they detail at ­great length every­thing from the vari­ous buttons controlling the automated toilets to the pro­cess for showering and bathing. For example, almost four of the eleven minutes of “My Homestay House in Japan” are devoted to bathrooms. Similarly, of the five and a half minutes of “Amanda in Japan: My Host ­Family’s House,” almost two of them are focused on the bathroom. And almost one and a half minutes are spent on showcasing



House Hunters International 97

the toilet in the “Hiroshima Home Stay (part 1),” a five-­minute, forty-­seven seconds video.59 In t­ hese and the many other homestay tour videos that feature toilets and bathing spaces, students’ fascination with difference is on display. The student tour guide of “My Homestay House in Japan” raves about the Japa­nese bathing custom of long bathtub soaks and tells the viewer he hopes to take advantage of the ritual during his stay. Similarly, Amanda of “Amanda in Japan: My Host ­Family’s House” seems positively tickled that the toilet seat automatically raises upon entry into the room and that the seat is heated (“You heard me, heated!” she exclaims). But Amanda is also circumspect about other aspects of the toilet, such as the bidet system, which she claims to dislike and never use. This circumspection is also shared about the pro­cess of hanging laundry in common spaces. Most homestay videos, from t­hose shot in Asia to ­those shot in Eu­rope, showcase their homestay’s laundry pro­ cess, and many students comment on how their homes ­don’t include dryers. While at least one student mentions the environmental benefits of hanging laundry to dry, another (“My Host F ­ amily’s Korean Apartment”) talks about her initial discomfort with hanging her underwear in her host ­family’s living room and, thus, not ­doing her laundry for a ­couple of weeks. On the one hand, in an era where home video practices are normalized and more uncouth, images of toilets and laundry may seem unremarkable. On the other hand, if the tourist gaze is a fetishistic one that staves off the discomfort culture shock has to our sense of self, the fact that ­these par­tic­ul­ar kinds of spaces are given so much airtime in homestay videos is worth noting. As Strain notes, bodily coherence, like cultural coherence, is also a “propping up device” central to our sense of selves.60 Thus, to visually fetishize the very places where the body loses coherence—­where its bound­aries are porous, where it loses control of itself, and where it experiences shame—­works to parry the fragility one might feel in the face of such cultural and bodily confusion. Thus, ­whether the result of the tourist gaze’s fetishization pro­cess, the recent banality of depictions of private spaces in the visual realm, or simply student shyness, ­these in-­depth explorations of unpeopled homes collectively revealed by student homestay tours offer a far dif­fer­ent picture of study abroad homestays than ­those advertised in vendors’ promotional videos. To begin with, they reveal a sense of isolation from the host ­family that is not pre­sent in the promotional videos. As the students wander around empty homes, we discover that homestays ­will include plenty of alone time as the host ­family goes about their own business. In ­these videos, homestay ­fathers

98

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

a­ ren’t kayaking with their foreign exchange students, as in DIS-­Study Abroad’s “Live in a DIS Homestay.” Instead, they are out with their biological c­ hildren (as in “First Host ­Family Tour!!! Japan Rotary Youth Exchange [V-­Log #4]”) or working undisturbed in their home offices (as in “Tour of Host ­Family’s Home”). As for building ­family relationships around the ritual of ­family dinner, while references to ­family meals are made in some (e.g., “Hiroshima Homestay [part 1]” and “Tour of Oaxacan Homestay!”), in homestay tours students are just as likely to characterize their eating experiences as fending for themselves or eating solo while ­family members are out. For example, when Sarah enters the kitchen in “Sarah’s Tour of Her Host F ­ amily’s Home in Austria,” she tells her viewers that she just cooked herself couscous for dinner. In “Tour of My Japa­nese Host F ­ amily’s House,” as the student tours the kitchen, she shows her viewers the breakfast her host ­family left on the ­table for her before they left for work and school. And in “My Host ­Family’s Korean Apartment,” a tour of the refrigerator gives the student the opportunity to tell her viewers not to expect “snacks and microwavable stuff ” if they come for a Korean homestay. This student—­whose host parents own a restaurant and love to cook—is well fed, but neither on her own schedule nor with familiar or con­ve­nient items. ­These images are a far cry from the ­family meals and get-­togethers seen in promotional homestay videos, where students are fully integrated into the home, its p­ eople, and its activities. Instead, in t­ hese student videos, their state of physical aloneness reveals them as segregated from the lives of the host families, whose comings and g­ oings occur in­de­pen­dent of the students living in their homes. Indeed, as students wander around their ­houses alone, ­there are constant reminders of their liminal status as visitors or guests. Whereas vendor videos highlight the spaciousness and privacy of student homestay accommodations, student-­produced videos often reveal that private space is allocated to students in ways that mark their transitory status as h­ ouse members. For example, in “My Host F ­ amily’s Apartment Tour [2014] [Spain Edition],” the student stays in her host ­brother’s bedroom while he sleeps in his ­sister’s room. While the f­amily has made ample room for the student in the son’s bedroom, many of his items nonetheless remain. In “Japan Exchange: Room Tour + Updates!” an exchange student from Singapore shows viewers her room, which is filled with her host b­ rothers’ stuffed animals, numerous storage boxes, and her host grand­mother’s decorative ornaments. And in “Vlog #27-­My Host F ­ amily’s Japa­nese House-­Exchange Student in Japan,” a young ­woman reveals that her bedroom is also her host dad’s “man cave,” in



House Hunters International 99

which he stores his personal items, including clothing and musical instruments hanging on the wall.61 Students’ liminal status as h­ ouse members is also echoed in the objects that the students focus on throughout their tours. In “Spain Study Abroad #41 My Spain Homestay Apartment Tour,” the student opens a cabinet in the hallway that contains nail polish left ­behind by previous homestay students. In several videos, students show the gifts they brought to their host ­family (e.g., kitchen magnets, banners, decorative plates)—­standard etiquette for study abroad students. Similarly, as students showcase their rooms, it is common for them to point out their suitcases. If all of the aforementioned objects speak to the students’ transience in the home, other objects along the tour reveal students’ outsider status in the f­ amily unit. Unlike the portrait of the host mom and her students featured in IES Abroad’s promotional video “Rio/Homestays/This Is Study Abroad,” the f­amily portrait shown on the homestay tour in “My Host ­Family’s Korean Apartment” does not include the student. As is the case with students being left alone to eat, t­ here is nothing in this focus on objects and spaces that suggests students’ discontent with their accommodations. In the majority of the homestay tours analyzed, students appear grateful about their homestay ­family and accommodations. They happily use old products left by previous students, and they reveal the gifts they offered to their host families with pride. Moreover, ­there is nothing to suggest that the student tour guide in “My Host F ­ amily’s Korean Apartment” feels alienated by seeing a portrait of her host f­ amily. As she quickly pans over the picture, she says, “A picture of my host f­amily, how nice.” Taken together, however, the covert and detailed focus on unpeopled spaces and the solo status of our tour guides as they film them implicitly remind the viewer of the transitory status of study abroad students and their extraneousness to the homes they occupy. This implicit message runs c­ ounter to study abroad rhe­ toric around homestays, in which students are encouraged to immerse themselves in the host country, view their accommodations as their home, and regard their hosts as their ­family. To find oneself inconsequential to the host ­family and home can be an unsettling position for any homestay student. Homestay students’ filming of empty homes suggests something more than just a search for images to fetishize and objects to collect. Instead of just filming to create collections of homes, homestay students may be searching for connections to homes. However, as home movie practices now converge with the global circulation of digital media, student homestay movies may have more to do with students connecting to their home country than to the host

100

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

country of their study abroad. Like promotional homestay movies, which draw on the ideologies and visual practices of familialism to narrow the gap between home and abroad, student homestay video practices also point homeward.

At Home in the World In ­There’s No Place Like Home Video, James M. Moran offers a “functional taxonomy of the home mode.” He argues that one of the cultural functions of home video is how “it constructs an image of home as a cognitive and affective foundation situating our place in the world.” In this conception, neither home nor its cognitive and affective value stems from any essential or biological connection to a par­tic­u­lar location. Rather, home is both an ideal and an experience that is the result of the “practical and emotional commitment” we grant to any given space in order to construct our sense of place, identity, and security. As a construct, home is thus also “unconfined to a specific place” and instead is “transportable within the space of the imagination.” As Moran notes, “The productive work of home construction may also include home mode artifacts traveling from country to country, city to city, or ­house to h­ ouse as a set of gestalt images providing a cognitive point of orientation in a mobile society.” His example of this home construction is the office worker who brings home into the office by decorating desks and cubicles with snapshots and framed portraits of families and dwellings. By d­ oing so, Moran argues that the individual is given constant “schematic reminders of their dwelling places of being.”62 Scholarship on exilic populations demonstrates the po­liti­ cal necessity of ­these “home mode artifacts.” Hamid Naficy suggests that “for many cosmopolitan ‘homeless’ exiles who are physically displaced, an Internet homepage is an attractive method for becoming discursively emplaced.”63 In turn, Patricia Seed shows how holding on to keys to lost homes enables exiles to hold on to the promise of returning to their homeland while also honoring the pain of exile.64 Thus, ­whether through physical objects or technological practices, and from varying positions with re­spect to physical homeland, home is something we carry with us. It is a movable act of materiality, imagination, and memory that links us to friends, ­family, and our “dwelling places of being.” On the face of it, when students wander around empty foreign homes, focusing on other p­ eople’s ­house­hold objects, they would hardly seem to be connecting with their own homes. Yet in a world where our devices keep us connected to both the idea of home and the p­ eople we associate with it, the



House Hunters International 101

very act of filming and uploading homestay videos may help students stay connected to their homes, ­whether f­ amily homes, shared apartments, or college dorms. In this way, the camera and the pro­cess of filming homestays become the home mode artifact that serves to orient students away from their host cultures and ­toward home. This is particularly evident in the address of homestay videos. While Michael Strangelove suggests that the presence of the internet has created an impulse for amateur videographers to speak to “the ­imagined global Internet audience,” in the context of students’ own global repositioning away from their home cultures, student homestay videos speak to more familiar audiences.65 ­These audiences include the traditional viewers of home movies, such as friends and ­family. For example, the student tour guide of “Tour of Host ­Family’s House” opens his tour with “Hey South Carolina, it’s David. . . . ​I’m currently walking up the stairs of my h­ ouse b­ ecause I’m ­going to show you the w ­ hole ­thing from the top down so you’ll have some context for all the pictures I’m putting up.” Geo­graph­ic­ ally locating his audience, this student’s homestay tour is clearly directed ­toward home. Similarly, the Brazilian study abroad student in Canada opens his homestay video with “Hello every­body in Brazil. I w ­ ill show you my home h­ ere in Canada, Toronto” (“My Homestay in Toronto City”).66 In turn, ­family members back home are referenced in “Tour of My Japa­nese Host F ­ amily’s House.” As the student wanders around the kitchen with her camera, she exclaims: “Oh ­daddy you’ll be proud of me ­because I do the dishes with them. Yay.” Homestay videos are also directed to fellow study abroad students seeking information about life in a foreign homestay. For example, at the end of “Host ­Family House Tour,” the student tour guide speaks directly to her viewers, asking for advice on what she can tell them about being “an exchange student in general.” In turn, as previously noted, when Sarah of “My Host ­Family’s Korean Apartment” speaks about not having snacks in her home, she speaks directly to fellow students when she says “­don’t count on having a lot of snack food or microwavable food in the h­ ouse cause t­ hey’re just not into that h­ ere.” ­These examples demonstrate that t­ here is a conversational nature to homestay video tours, whereby the student imagines connecting with someone they have a familiarity with, ­either as an intimate or as a social type. Indeed, as Michael Strangelove argues, cultural production on the internet has a “dialogical character” that “indicates a desire for communication.”67 He argues that, even as some videos on YouTube fail to spark conversations, amateur videos on YouTube should be regarded “not merely as a text but as a pro­cess” in which the “meaning and significance of an amateur video are found in how the community responds to it.”68 Homestay videos, then, are one of a number

102

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

of ways that students can imagine and maintain their connection to their home cultures and ­imagined communities. This is consistent with not only the practices of amateur video on YouTube but also the practices of tourist mobile home movies. Alexandra Schneider argues that travel-­themed home movies always point homeward. She writes, “However much the traveler breaks away from his ordinary life, the tourist home movie never quite leaves home.”69 This is partly due to the difficulty the tourist has from unplugging from everyday life, but also ­because of the way that amateur filmmaking rhe­toric of the twentieth ­century guided prac­ti­tion­ers to prioritize and elevate home and ­family as visual content. Patricia R. Zimmermann argues that early home movie discourse guided amateur filmmakers to “exalt the everyday details of ­family living to a level of spectacle, won­der, and importance.”70 Schneider suggests that this rhe­toric travels with families on their mobile home movies, which often visualize the tourist experience as an elevated version of everyday life. In d­ oing so, mobile home movies both provide continuity with and narrow the gulf between home and away. In homestay videos, then, what may appear as alienation from the home may actually reflect an attempt to create continuity with home practices, to elevate versions of home identities, and to share t­ hese connections with o­ thers at home. For example, videos showcasing that students eat alone in their homestay may be simply showcasing an extension of their lives at home. No doubt that in some of the students’ biological homes or college apartments, they make their own dinner or eat breakfast alone. They may also depend on ­others—­college cafeterias or parents—to make their meals on a schedule that is not of their choosing. Indeed, not only do the students in ­these videos neither lament being left to their own devices nor allude to abandonment by their host ­family, they also indicate that their travel fosters an improvement of their quotidian selves. When the student of “My Host F ­ amily’s Korean Apartment” mentions the health benefits of not having snacks in her homestay, she attests to a better version of her home identity. Similarly, when the student tells her ­father she is ­doing the dishes in “Tour of My Japa­nese Host ­Family’s House,” she showcases an improvement in her home be­hav­ior.

Home Is Where the Digital Phone Is Unsurprisingly, students’ increasing connection to home culture is a growing concern in study abroad arenas. For the majority of its existence, studying abroad meant minimal contact with friends and f­ amily back home, l­ imited to



House Hunters International 103

expensive long-­distance calls and letter writing. With the advent of digital technology, the ability to connect with ­family and friends back home has exponentially shifted, making study abroad seem, as James A. Coleman and Tony Chafer claim, “less abroad than it once was.”71 Among the many concerns attendant to this shift, including universities’ growing reliance on virtual over face-­to-­face contact, ­there are concerns about the ways in which digital communication can influence the ratio between host culture and home cultural contact.72 ­There is some evidence that bears this out. A handful of studies point to a decrease in students’ language acquisition, intercultural development, and cultural integration alongside their use of digital communication during study abroad.73 It is in this context that screeds such as “How Facebook Can Ruin Study Abroad” offer jeremiads about technologies’ dangerous influence on international education.74 While t­here are real concerns around students’ use of the internet for international educators to contend with, ­there is also a ­great deal of hyperbole surrounding the issue. As Hofer et al. write, “In spite of a growing sense of concern about how such dramatically increased potential for communication might influence the study abroad experience, only l­imited research on the subject has been conducted.”75 Indeed, data on the negative consequences of digital communication on study abroad outcomes is nascent and often narrow in scope. Furthermore, Hofer et al. point out that most of this research reveals not only negative but also positive impacts of technology on the learning outcomes of study abroad.76 For example, Victor Savicki’s research data shows that “student access to home culture support may provide another means [of] helping students to cope with the complexities of acculturative stress.”77 Similarly, Jude  P. Mikal and Kathryn Grace point out that virtual connections to familiar communities provide students with “perceived support” that can help minimize stress and aid in their cultural transition.78 In this context, then, the student-­produced homestay movie is a particularly in­ter­est­ing form of digital communication to explore. Placing it in the context of other forms of social media use while abroad, it can be seen as a way for students to connect with their homes while abroad, thereby reducing the stress of acculturation to a foreign home and f­ amily. On the one hand, it would be reasonable to regard this as an innocuous, and possibly even productive, use of technology, a straddling between cultures that enables students to si­mul­ta­neously learn from and develop sensitivity ­toward the host culture while also securing their home identity. If we strip away the grandiose claims and unproven benefits of education abroad, this may be the best the industry and its allies can hope for. On the other hand, the specificity of the

104

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

study abroad gaze in homestay movies forces us to explore the implications of such a compromise. In par­tic­u­lar, the stress relief that homestay videos provide students is enabled through the historically burdened lens of the tourist gaze. Thus, the ramifications of the homestay video remain problematic. Most emblematic of this complexity is the fact that, even as students may innocuously use homestay videos to stave off the anxiety of culture shock and connect with their home culture, they open up foreign homes—­their intimate spaces, personal objects, and dirty laundry—to a global audience. As is historically the case with the tourist gaze, in the ser­vice of their own comfort and security, this study abroad gaze leaves foreign cultures open to uninvited and objectified global exposure.

4 ◆ STUDY ABROAD’S DIVERSIT Y PROB­L EM Vlogs as Necessary Media

Upon entering the ­free online game Hair Nah, created by video game designer and visual artist Momo Pixel, the visitor is greeted with the following information: “Aeva loves to travel, but is hesitant to ­because ­people often invade her personal space by touching her hair without permission. So help Aeva catch her flight and protect her hair by stopping the reaching hands.” Players are then directed to a close-up of a pixelated Aeva, a light-­skinned, bald, black w ­ oman whom players can customize from six black skin tones (light to dark) and twelve hairstyles, ranging from natu­ral styles to braids to straightened blowouts.1 Once Aeva is personalized and the player chooses her destination from three options—­Osaka, Havana, or the Santa Monica Pier—­the game is ready to play. Through a series of dif­fer­ent screens that coincide with Aeva’s travel journey—­from the taxi ­ride to the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) security line to her destination—­players help Aeva use her hands to swat away the multitude of white hands swarming her hair. Keeping the encroaching hands at bay is the key to both winning the game and Aeva’s successful vacation.2 Hair Nah exemplifies the central themes of this chapter—­the historically complicated and fraught relationship black Americans have with travel and the role of media in navigating their way through it. In par­tic­u­lar, this chapter explores how black students use vlogs to navigate their complicated relationship with the institution and practice of study abroad. For black students, vlogs

105

106

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

do the impor­tant work of creating and maintaining the persona of the “black student abroad,” a figure that is minimized or negated by an industry that seeks but strug­gles to understand and adequately recognize her. By performatively iterating the black student traveler into subjectivity, student vlogs go beyond the field’s ­limited framing of black students abroad and instead bestow them with the symbolic capital, visibility, and resources historically denied black travelers.

Necessary Media As a result of the slave trade’s forced migration, the vio­lence accompanying northern migration in the post-­Reconstruction era, segregation/desegregation, and institutionalized racism, black Americans’ options for, experience with, and discourses around travel and mobility have vastly differed from white Americans’ throughout the twentieth and twenty-­first centuries.3 Before the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, which ended ­legal discrimination against African Americans, their options for travel and public accommodation ­were severely ­limited, especially but not exclusively across the South. The risks attendant to travel both before and a­ fter this time—of discomfort, of humiliation, of vio­lence—­coupled with its brutal vestiges, result in distinct discursive traits around black travel. As Gary Totten points out, discourses around black travel historically underscore the fractious and complicated “relationship between mobility and corporeality.”4 Hair Nah exemplifies the ongoing legacy of this, as Aeva’s mobility and desire to travel are thwarted both physically and psychologically by what Simone Brown calls the “scrutinizing surveillance” of black female bodies in public.5 Brown argues that airports are a particularly rich site for this surveillance. As a space conducive to spectatorship, airports make black bodies “available for scrutiny and inspection”; as a place dedicated to security, airports feed into the myth of black ­women’s hair as threatening and weaponized in order to subject black bodies to humiliating forms of TSA investigation.6 As Hair Nah playfully exposes, the terrain of travel can be a battlefield for black w ­ omen, who need fortitude and strategy to navigate the corporeal and psychological challenges of traveling while black. Indeed, Aeva’s journey ­isn’t easy. Pixel purposely made the game challenging, wanting to evoke the anxiety that black w ­ omen feel when their bodies are regarded as public property.7 With numerous hands grabbing Aeva from all sides of the frame, circumventing them is not a ­simple ­matter. To get Aeva to her destination, it takes dexterity, focus, and determination. Pixel, whose tiny



Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem 107

avatar pops up at the end of each level, lovingly encourages the struggling player to be resilient, saying: “Gurl, That’s Alright. Give it Another Go.” As a playful arena in which black w ­ omen’s difficulties traveling are validated and reclaimed, Hair Nah also reveals the par­tic­u­lar role that media plays as a form of support for and validation of the black female traveler. Aeva’s ability to travel uninhibited is reliant on the player shielding her from the obstacles she f­ aces; in turn, the player’s success is encouraged by the support of Pixel’s avatar. That it is only through this collaborative effort that Aeva is able to negotiate the racist be­hav­iors that accompany her travel reflects the necessity of community support in black travel practices. Black travelers have long relied on and built alternative organ­izations and resources—­from travel agencies to guidebooks—to help them navigate the logistics and challenges of what is now called “traveling while black.” The most famous of t­ hese is Victor Green’s annual guidebook The Negro Travelers’ Green Book (1936–1966), which, before the Civil Rights Act, offered travelers critical information on where they could shop, eat, stay, play, and refuel without the threat of vio­lence or degradation.8 Alongside making traveling as a black person a possibility, this book also encouraged the idea of “the black traveler” as an aspirational real­ity. Hair Nah is particularly attuned to this latter function. Though traveling for a black ­woman may be challenging, Hair Nah equally stresses Aeva’s identity as a global traveler with wide-­ranging travel interests; getting to her destination may take grit, but she can get ­there. In ­doing so, Hair Nah continues to write black Americans into travel history. Though the need for travel guides outlining black-­friendly spaces no longer exists for the same reasons, the spirit of The Negro Travelers’ Green Book lives on in con­temporary guidebooks and organ­izations catering to black travelers. At the turn of the twenty-­first c­ entury African American travelers ­were “identified by the United States Travel Association . . . ​as the number one fastest growing segment in the travel industry.”9 Yet Alana K. Dillette, Stefanie Benjamin, and Chelsea Carpenter point out that African Americans “continue to participate in many of the travel be­hav­iors established during Jim Crow segregation.” Th ­ ese authors suggest that their orientation ­toward travel and choice of destinations are affected by, among other t­ hings, previous discrimination on a trip, fear of racism, the opinions and recommendations of ­family and friends about safety and location, race-­related travel itineraries, and participation in group travel.10 As a result, con­temporary black travel guides extend the work of previous travel resources by providing guidance, itineraries, and aspiration to black travelers, filling in the gaps of a larger tourist industry that ­either ignores ­people of color or discriminates against them,

108

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

such as the refusal of some Airbnb hosts to rent to ­people of color and the ejection of black w ­ omen from trains for being too loud.11 Recognizing that black ­people may have par­tic­u­lar travel needs and challenges that require specific resources, education, and community support, companies and blogs such as Back to Africa, Travel Noire, Outdoor Afro, Nomadness, and Innclusive are part of what is known as the con­temporary black travel movement, which helps travelers navigate challenges and envision themselves as travelers. ­Today, this movement has its greatest momentum online, with Instagram, BlackTwitter, blogs, and vlogs providing resources for black travelers and, more impor­tant, visual examples that revise cultural narratives of travel as solely a white practice and privilege.12 As Dillette, Benjamin, and Carpenter point out, “Like The Green Book, ­these online communities help Black travelers navigate a world outside of their comfort zone. . . . ​W hile Blacks may not be able to stop pos­si­ble occurrences of racism, colorism, and other negative experiences, they can remain resilient and use their online communities to connect, inform, and uplift fellow travelers.”13 This chapter addresses one par­tic­u­lar online resource in the new black travel movement: study abroad vlogs on YouTube. Though the black study abroad student appears across a variety of digital platforms, their presence on YouTube is particularly impor­tant in raising the profile of the black traveler. According to a recent poll, YouTube is “the #1 preferred learning method” of “Generation Z.”14 Defined as students born in the late 1990s, Generation Z grew up comfortable with a digital ecosystem of tags and keywords, turning to YouTube for multiple purposes, including the consumption and production of entertainment, activism, and education. Thus, YouTube is a central place for students to seek information about study abroad. Searchable by numerous configurations of the keywords “race,” “study abroad,” “black,” and “African American,” study abroad vlogs by students identifying as black or African American appear in g­ reat numbers on YouTube. Like the larger con­ temporary black travel movement and its pre­de­ces­sors, ­these vlogs serve to help students of color negotiate unfamiliar material spaces and, equally impor­ tant, envision themselves as global travelers. This is significant given that students identified as black and African American are second only to American Indian or Alaskan Native students as the least likely group of students to study abroad during college.15 By now it is well known—­and not just by stakeholders—­that study abroad is primarily pursued by white students; in 2008, study abroad appeared as an entry on the popu­lar satirical blog “Stuff White ­People Like.”16 Data bears out this ste­reo­type. According to the 2019



Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem 109

Open Doors Report, which collects data on the demographics of study abroad participants, students identifying as black or African American made up only 6.1 ­percent of students abroad in 2017–2018, while white students made up 70 ­percent.17 By comparison, in 2016, black students made up 13.7 ­percent of all students enrolled in degree-­granting postsecondary institutions and only 56.9 ­percent of the students w ­ ere white.18 This is a long-­standing discrepancy that has caused much hand-­wringing in the field, becoming a major focus of the larger institutional efforts to diversify study abroad that emerged in the late 1980s.19 Increasingly since this time, in policy documents, conferences, government initiatives, academic studies, trade publications, and keynote addresses, stakeholders offer strategies for diversifying student travelers, produce data-­driven studies about the unique travel experiences of students of color, and theorize about the reasons for the low participation of minority students. In turn, as part of the larger efforts to reach students from community colleges and eco­nom­ically disadvantaged ­house­holds, new funding opportunities, such as the federally funded, need-­based Gilman International Scholarship, broadened financial scholarships for low-­income students of color. Moreover, the first de­cade of the twenty-­first ­century ushered in advocacy organ­izations such as Diversity Abroad and Teens of Color Abroad, and some vendors and universities began to pay attention to the questions and concerns of black students interested in international education, offering online resources and FAQs.20 However, as the 2018 controversy over a French art school’s digital creation of black f­aces in its advertisements to American students reveals, study abroad’s diversity prob­lem remains as significant as ever.21 Despite substantial industry efforts, the slowness and inconsistency of institutional attention to student diversity mean that it has not broadly infiltrated university study abroad offices and informational sessions, which are often students’ first point of contact about travel abroad. Moreover, as this chapter ­will go on to argue, its discursive framework has ­limited the ability of the field to change the profile of the typical study abroad student, who remains white both demographically and in the cultural imaginary. In this climate of inconsistent information and attention, vlogs by black students are necessary sources of information. But this chapter argues that ­these vlogs ­aren’t just essential ­because of the information they give to black students about how to negotiate unfamiliar material spaces. Rather, study abroad vlogs by students of color are vital for the way they write students back into a field that primarily frames the black study abroad student by their absence. As M’Balia Thomas observes, “Much of the lit­er­a­ture on racial/ethnic

110

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

minority student participation in study abroad overwhelmingly emphasizes students who do not participate in study abroad rather than ­those who do.”22 This is achieved in a number of discursive ways, including: 1) an overstatement of the participation levels of white students in study abroad, 2) an oversimplification and assumed primacy of racial/ethnic identity as a meaningful analytic in monitoring study abroad participation, 3) an overemphasis on disempowering concepts of “barriers”, “constraints” and “lack”, rather than more empowering notions of “possessing” (dif­fer­ent academic priorities) and “having” (alternative educational goals) in investigating ­factors contributing to the lower levels of study abroad participation among racial/ethnic minority students, and 4) an underestimation of racial/ethnic-­specific discourses related to space and place that shape attitudes and influence decisions to study abroad.23

­ ese widely used discursive frameworks for discussing black study abroad Th students mean that they are framed as an absence rather than a presence, a hope rather than a real­ity, and a difficult prob­lem to fix rather than a remedy from which to learn. Indeed, as Karyn Sweeney points out, “­there is l­ittle research specifically addressing success in study abroad by students of color.”24 Thus, the field of study abroad works to undermine its very goals for diversification by inadvertently invalidating the idea of the black student traveler. In contrast, ­because of the way they performatively iterate the black student traveler into subjectivity through presence rather than absence, study abroad vlogs by students of color function as a particularly urgent form of useful media. That this is done in the arena of social media is no surprise. As Anna Poletti and Julie Rak discuss, “It is now commonplace to assume that personal identity work is foundational to the production of social media and even of hardware interfaces,” whose technological and social contexts—­also known as its “affordances”—­provide a “constant directive to ‘share’ personal information” and “create a specific type of identity.”25 Marginalized subjects, particularly girls and young w ­ omen of all races and ethnicities, are central to this practice of identity making and sharing. As Emma Maguire points out, with a strong pre-­existing foundation in personal expression through such forms as zines and diaries, “they w ­ ere among the earliest adopters of digital self-­representation,” turning to digital life writing for some of the same reasons marginalized subjects have long turned to autobiographical narratives: “to write themselves into culture.”26 In what follows, then, I examine the specific ways in which students who identify as black and/or African American (unsurprisingly mostly young ­women, who are the primary population of



Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem 111

study abroad) perform the identity of student travelers on vlogs, thereby reconstituting themselves into a field that primarily denies their existence. In d­ oing so, they have the potential to reshape current ideas about and practices of race and study abroad. This makes vlogs by students of color not just useful but necessary media.

Studying Abroad While Black Unlike most study abroad vlogs by black students, the YouTube video “S. A. W. B. (Studying Abroad While Black)” uses the narrative form to speak about black students’ experiences with study abroad. A skit about a white study abroad adviser ill equipped to advise a black female student, the video opens with the young student sitting at a desk across from the adviser as she informs him of her destination par­ameters, “I want to go somewhere where I can speak En­glish, where I can feel safe and be respected, and also so I can get a new understanding of a dif­fer­ent part of the world.” But t­ hese par­ameters mask her true concerns, which she highlights in an internal voice-­over: “What I r­ eally need to ask,” she reveals, “is ‘where is it safe to be black?’ ‘Or which country ­hasn’t white supremacy reached?’ Th ­ ese are all ­things I must consider during my S.A.W.B.” What follows is a humorous skit in which, in a series of shot/reverse shots across the desk, the adviser suggests a variety of locations that the student categorically rejects based on the country’s current or historical treatment of black ­people. For example, when he suggests New Zealand, she responds that she visited ­there when she was twelve, and she was confused for “the help”; when he suggests South Africa, she guffaws, “Have you heard of apartheid?”; and when he suggests the UK, she gives him a blank stare and asserts, “King George funded the enslavement of my ­people, which is why I ­don’t know where I come from.” The adviser, flustered by her series of rebukes, is defeated; “shit,” he exasperatedly exclaims. Staring at him squirming in his chair, the student gives up her quest for a more productive advising session and decides to appease him before he “has a heart attack.” “But,” she capitulates, “[the UK] also produced Naomi Campbell, so fuck it, why not?” The adviser, clearly thrilled that this ordeal has come to an end, proclaims “thank god.” Staring back at the now-­satisfied adviser, the student asserts in an internal voice-­over: “You could have just said ‘I ­can’t help you.’ ”27 Though this video offers (perhaps purposely) an exaggerated case—­where ­hasn’t white supremacy been a prob­lem?—it illustrates how black students can feel alienated from study abroad offices and vendors. While t­here are

112

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

industry and academic calls and efforts to change this, often black students are neither provided with the information and encouragement nor given the resources they need to address their travel concerns.28 As the video demonstrates, without awareness of the issues with which black student travelers must contend, study abroad offices ­will be ill equipped to h­ andle students concerns. This can result, as the video also suggests, in poor decision making and a continued sense of marginalization from study abroad. At the same time that this video signals the failure of study abroad offices to recognize the needs of students of color, by its very existence it also signals the internet as an alternative resource for students seeking information. Certainly, one could expect that in the face of this dispiriting advising session the fictional student herself might turn to the internet to get the information and guidance she needs. Should she search for YouTube videos, she might type in a variety of keywords—­black, study abroad, African American—­that w ­ ill lead her to a series of algorithmically linked video recommendations with titles such as “Black in K ­ orea | First Day—­Travel Vlog 1,” “All About My Experience Being Black in Spain—­Black Study Abroad,” “Black and Abroad Part 1: My First Week in Amsterdam,” “Black in Hong Kong Vlog Ep. 1! Study Abroad in Hong Kong!,” “My Study Abroad Experience: Being Black in Madrid, Spain!!!,” and “Black in Germany: What I Noticed. . . .” Unlike the fictionalized study abroad adviser, ­these and the numerous other vlogs on YouTube that promote themselves ­under similar titles all pay attention to the unique challenges that black students can expect to face during their academic travels.29 Some of ­these challenges are specific to par­tic­u­lar countries, such as the Chinese habit of aggressively staring at, touching the hair of, and taking photos with black ­people without their consent.30 O ­ thers are more general challenges that black students might have irrespective of where they travel, such as a lack of fellow black travelers in their study abroad cohort, difficulty finding hair products and stylists catering to black hair, and microaggressions, racism, and colorism abroad. Vloggers share their stories about ­these issues with a combination of levity and sobriety. One of the co-­vloggers of “Our Study Abroad Experience: Being Black in China” recounts her experiences as a dark-­skinned ­woman wearing braids in China, including being awakened on a plane by a w ­ oman leaning over her body and staring. The vloggers of “Last Study Abroad Q & A|Being a POC, Housing, Classes, + More” and “My Study Abroad Experience | Australia Pt. 2-­Let’s Talk Black Hair” reveal the oft-­cited strug­gle for black ­women of finding hair products for black hair. The first vlogger, whose hair was “dried to a crisp,” laments not being able to find any information on her study abroad program’s website, while the student



Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem 113

in Australia tells her viewers “the strug­gle is real.” In turn, vloggers share their experiences with racism from both locals and their study abroad cohorts; the creator of “Being Black in ­Korea // The Study Abroad Edition” describes being called racist epithets by male students in her cohort, and the creator of “Young, Black and Abroad” speaks about the racism she endures in Perugia, Italy. Additionally, ­these vlogs also feature students lamenting the paucity of black students in their program or host countries. Titles such as “I Found a Black Girl in Spain! & This Is What We Did | Study Abroad Spain,” “The First Black Person I Met,” “Study Abroad Barcelona Vlog 3: Met Someone Black, Pre-­ drinks? and Shopping,” “Vlog #1: A Day in My Life Studying Abroad in France,” and “I’m the Only Black Person in the Czech Republic?? | Study Abroad Travel Vlog” reveal the alienation black students feel in overwhelmingly white study abroad environments, as well as the significance of meeting/seeing other black p­ eople during their travels. Fi­nally, some students reveal frustration with their study abroad programs for not taking the concerns of black travelers seriously, as with the creator of “5 Tips for Studying Abroad as a Conscious Black Girl-­Brasil,” who felt gaslighted by program leaders a­ fter trying to discuss racist and sexist encounters in-­country. Importantly, ­these vlogs d­ on’t stop short at exposing the prob­lems black students face while abroad. They also intentionally serve as guides and mentors, roles that are openly or tacitly referred to in the videos. For example, though many vloggers mention the challenges and culture shock of being on display as a black person, they are quick to offer sage advice. The student who woke up on a plane to someone staring at her says, “I quickly had to get to learn that like, when ­you’re in China, that’s just the culture, ­people are gonna stare at you.” L ­ ater, her co-­creator of the vlog advises ­future travelers to “have a tough skin. Have a heart. It’s easy to want to go home. . . . ​Be open. Embrace situations.” Similarly, t­ hose students who experienced racism from both locals and their study abroad cohorts are equally concerned to offer positive advice to ­future travelers. The student who was called racist epithets by members of her program cohort warns her viewers, “If you allow [exchange students] to ruin your time, I w ­ ill come and find you and give you a talking to.” Similarly, a student who experienced racism in Milan—­a place she chose over another destination she felt would be more racist—­informs the viewers of “Studying Abroad While Black”: “Racism can happen anywhere. So, it is impor­tant that you go out ­there; ­don’t rob yourself of another culture.” Likewise, the creator of “5 Tips for Studying Abroad as a Conscious Black Girl-­Brasil” tells ­future students not to let any “foolishness” get in the way of their academic travel goals and self-­care. Her “5 Tips” are precisely geared t­ oward providing guidance to

114

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

black ­women, something she felt she lacked when making decisions about ­going abroad. Providing mentorship is also central to “Black Girls Travel: I Got Accepted Abroad/USAC Pro­cess!” The student vlogger’s stated goal is “to encourage ­people who look like me . . . ​to follow their dreams . . . ​trust god and work [their] butt off . . . ​[and] forget p­ eople who say you c­ an’t do it.” This student takes her viewers through the entire application pro­cess, explaining the vari­ous steps one should take when filling out the forms and offering tips for successful essay writing. Nor ­will vloggers let hair issues be a deterrent, advising students to put their hair in a protective style before they depart Amer­i­ca and bring their own products. Fi­nally, many of the students lamenting the lack of black p­ eople on their trip reveal the plea­sure in fi­nally making a connection with another person of color. Vloggers show themselves with their new friends shopping, watching tele­vi­sion, and interviewing them about their experiences. For example, the (now deleted) vlog “I Found a Black Girl in Spain! & This Is What We Did | Study Abroad Spain” solely depicts two young w ­ omen sitting on a bed watching The Maury Show, an activity, the vlogger says, “that black p­ eople do.” This seemingly banal pastime is shown as a form of cultural bonding for a student who, from the title of her vlog, clearly feels racially isolated. In sharing their experiences, solutions, and support with current and f­ uture travelers, ­these vlogs si­mul­ta­neously serve educative, affective, and po­liti­cal functions. By offering tips and wisdom they offer resources and guidance that are often missing from official study abroad programs and offices. For marginalized groups who have ­limited offline support for their needs, this mediated knowledge sharing is a common practice. For example, a­ fter years of isolation in the pre-­internet era, transgender ­people can now use social media to acquire information beyond sensationalized or pathologized accounts of their lives. According to Brandon Miller, vlogs on YouTube play a particularly impor­tant role in trans knowledge production b­ ecause the video platform enables trans p­ eople to visually and narratively share their own pro­cesses of transitioning. But as Miller also points out, ­these vlogs a­ ren’t solely informational how-­tos, noting “many transgender YouTubers ­will delve into emotionally charged and even painful topics, such as dating, bullying, f­ amily relationships, and experiences with prejudice.”31 While the experiences and concerns of trans ­people are distinct from ­those of black travelers, this kind of affective work is also central to study abroad vlogs by students of color. This is not only b­ ecause they too are filled with emotionally charged topics, but also ­because, as many have observed, the affordances and conventions of vlogs work to convey intimacy, self-­disclosure, and authenticity that assume an emotional



Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem 115

connection between vlogger and viewer.32 As Karoliina Talvitie-­Lamberg points out, ­these affects are enabled through the continued use of early webcam aesthetics, such as close-­ups, direct address, static camera, the confessional mode, and domestic/bedroom mise-­en-­scène, all of which create the impression that someone is connecting through the sharing of their au­then­tic self.33 Though some of the study abroad vlogs ­under discussion are more mobile, showing their subjects out in the streets, the majority draw on some combination of webcam aesthetics that foster intimacy and connection. Since, as Kandace L. Harris points out, “belonging and community are recurrent themes illustrated among black social media users,” the affective intimacy of study abroad vlogs allows students to see themselves as part of a larger group.34 This likewise speaks to the po­liti­cal function of t­ hese vlogs, as they provide evidence of the existence of the black study abroad student through what Lee Humphreys, informed by the work of Nick Couldry, calls “media accounting.” Humphreys describes media accounting as “the pro­cess of reckoning or providing evidence for and explanation of our presence, existence, and action through media.”35 Our media accounts are made up of “the creation, circulation, and consumption of media traces”: the “texts, videos, and images created by p­ eople in their course of documenting their lives, what they do, where they go, who they are.”36 Thus, e­ very time we perform an act of media accounting— by posting, uploading, and sharing our views, stories, achievements, memories, quotidian selves—we leave a media trace that shapes how we are read by ourselves and ­others. Humphreys argues that “the aggregation of descriptions, of our media traces, and the media traces of o­ thers which feature us, convey a par­tic­u­lar version of who we are.”37 ­These versions can show our “qualities” and “qualifications” for certain social roles.38 The aggregation of the media traces of the black study abroad student works along ­these lines. E ­ very upload of a video about the black student abroad is a media trace that showcases the student’s identity and skills as a traveler. Though this “media accounting” via vlogs may not be considered po­liti­cal, as Henry Jenkins, drawing on Melissa Victoria Harris-­Lacewell’s work on the black counterpublic sphere, reminds us, “For subordinate groups, t­ hese [new media] spaces of ‘everyday talk’ are crucial for the development of po­liti­cal consciousness, for reinforcing shared cultural norms, and for working out alternatives to the dominant culture’s views of their identities and interests.”39 Given that narratives of deficiency—in terms of population and pathways—­are what typically defines the black student abroad in institutional discourse, the students’ vis­i­ble manifestation as experienced and capable travelers via vlogs provides a much-­needed corrective and challenge to the repre­sen­ta­tional status quo.

116

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

A BROADER NARRATIVE At the same time that the focus on students’ experiences as students of color abroad is central to the work of ­these vlogs, the sharing of uniquely black experiences, solutions, and support with current and ­future travelers is only one part of the vlogs’ manifestation of the black study abroad student. Where the vlogs do equally critical work is in how they move beyond questions of race to assert a broader traveler identity for ­these students. This is not an erasure of race but rather the per­for­mance of a dif­fer­ent identity whose challenges stem not from skin color but from the experiences, including challenging ones, of global travel. This, then, is a dif­fer­ent kind of media accounting, not of a black student who travels but of a traveler who happens to be black. This identity per­for­mance is less didactic and politicized but no less significant in the cultural work the vlogs do in asserting the black student abroad. The traveler identity in t­ hese vlogs emerges in two distinct ways. The first is through vloggers’ per­for­mances of distinct traveler modes, including the anticipatory and excited traveler, the weary traveler, the frustrated traveler, the confident traveler, the tourist, the tour guide, and the study abroad ste­ reo­type. In ­these scenes, students highlight and negotiate typical global travel experiences and challenges that cross racial lines. For example, “I’m the Only Black Person in the Czech Republic?? | Study Abroad Travel Vlog” opens with the vlogger driving with her m ­ other to the airport. H ­ ere, the student exudes energetic enthusiasm, exclaiming that she has only nine more hours ­until she reaches Prague. This enthusiasm is put to the test when, upon arrival, she is unable to get into her apartment building and d­ oesn’t have her luggage, wearing the same clothes for three days. Though ­these are the kinds of travel issues that can make the most seasoned traveler weary, this student continues her per­for­mance of enthusiastic traveler, showcasing a can-do spirit. ­After not being able to get into her apartment, and standing around on an unfamiliar street in Prague, she confidently tells her viewers, “I’m gonna figure this out.” And though she is frustrated by not having her suitcase on day three, she ­doesn’t let it get in the way of an excursion to a ­castle with her classmates. While this student maintains her per­for­mance of the enthusiastic and courageous traveler, the vlogger of “Jordan Vlog | Study Abroad | Part One | Black Girls Travel!” performs the role of the weary traveler. A ­ fter quick scenes of her at a going-­away party with her f­amily and enjoying her breakfast on the plane, the vlog cuts to a black screen while, in a voice-­over, the student reveals her exhaustion and disorientation from the time change. With a cut to a montage of sightseeing activities, the weary traveler quickly recovers and morphs



Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem 117

into the sightseeing tourist. Tourist identity is also on display in “Paris Vlog 2 (Eiffel Tower)” and “Paris Vlog! (chipotle!),” both produced by the same student. In the first video, the student is shown filming herself outside the Eiffel Tower talking about having recently seen the Mona Lisa. In the second video, the student and members of her study abroad cohort wait in line at the global fast-­food chain Chipotle, performing a familiar scene of Americans giddy at the thought of a taste of “home.” This is not the only traveler role the student performs. In a third vlog post, “Nia Tarah Traveling (Thoughts in Sicily) Ft Dom the Bomb! *Study Abroad*,” set at a bus stop in Sicily, she and a fellow black student highlight their identities as savvy travelers. While this vlog discusses the challenges of being black w ­ omen in Sicily—­evidenced by the number of men who verbally harass them as they wait for their bus to take them to see Greek ruins—­the video is also about asserting their role as shrewd female travelers. They glare at the men who sexualize them at the same time that they talk about using their charms and feigned ignorance to get on buses for ­free. While ­these ­women emphasize their interest in culture rather than men, other students perform the ste­reo­typical role of the abroad student who is more interested in partying and shopping than learning about their host culture. For example, the vlogger of “My Week Studying Abroad in London!!!” opens her video by complaining about having to use a notebook instead of a laptop in her class and the “gross” breakfasts students are served. L ­ ater, before ­going on an academic excursion from London to the historic area of Greenwich, she tells the viewer that she w ­ asn’t ­really paying attention in class to why they w ­ ere ­going ­there. She skips other cultural activities too, explaining that she ­isn’t ­really a “museum person.” What she is excited about is shopping (she gleefully films the inside of Harrods department store) and nightlife, drinking with her friends at a gimmicky “ice bar.” Likewise, the vlogger of “Study Abroad Barcelona Vlog 3: Met Someone Black, Pre-­drinks? and Shopping” shirks official study abroad activities, complaining that, since her program’s orientation is disor­ga­nized, she is ­going to head to the global beauty store Sephora instead. L ­ ater, she and a friend also spend time in global brands H&M and Adidas. In contrast, the vloggers of “Black in Hong Kong Vlog Ep. 1! Study Abroad in Hong Kong!,” “Last Study Abroad Q & A|Being a POC, Housing, Classes, + More,” “Black in Nicaragua-­My Study Abroad Experience| Bintou Waiga,” and “Do Black College Students Study Abroad?? \ Tips/Encouragement” all work to c­ ounter ­these ste­reo­typical views of American students, distancing themselves from fellow study abroad students and touristy sightseeing while aligning themselves with the values of study abroad

118

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

(e.g., homestays, language acquisition, cultural immersion, off-­the-­beaten path exploration). The role of expert tour guide is also a­ dopted by many vloggers. Vloggers reveal a variety of tips that mark them as cultural insiders with valuable knowledge to share. They offer advice about what food to try, how to negotiate with shop­keep­ers, hygiene recommendations for bathrooms, places to go and activities to do, rules for clothing, regions with large black populations, drinking etiquette, eating habits, ­house­hold goods and produce, social media usage, social norms around photography and physical contact, cautionary advice, and academic knowledge. Some of this guidance is offered as information to the i­ magined broader audience of YouTube. For example, when the student vlogger of “Black in Hong Kong Vlog Ep. 1! Study Abroad in Hong Kong!” shares with his viewers that “­there is no gallon milk ­here, every­thing ­here is a lot smaller” he does so to share cultural observations. This is also the case for the vlogger of “Study Abroad Observations of Italy Part 1 Episode 1,” who lets her viewers know that in Italy “­people stay in restaurants for three hours” and “they d­ on’t rush you for the check.” In turn, many ­others offer advice directly to a viewer with the expectation that they too w ­ ill travel abroad to the same location. In a humorous conversation about shopping for clothes in China, one of the co-­vloggers of “Our Study Abroad Experience: Being Black in China” tells potential travelers that “if ­you’re like me . . . ​curvy . . . ​ ­don’t think you are ­going to shop” and that shop­keep­ers w ­ ill look at you and assume ­things w ­ on’t fit. Likewise, the advice the vlogger of “Black in Nicaragua-­My Study Abroad Experience| Bintou Waiga” shares with her viewers about homesickness assumes a prospective or current traveler. She advises: “You ­will get homesick once the excitement dies down. Remind yourself why you are ­there. Allow this to be a lifechanging experience if you immerse. Acknowledge your homesickness but d­ on’t get so caught up with it. Turn off your phone. Delete social media apps. Try to leave your phone off. Just be where you are.” ­These enactments of distinct traveler modes are impor­tant ­because they place the black study abroad student in broader narratives of travel than they are typically placed in study abroad discourses. Whereas the field’s narratives of the black study abroad student emphasize their physical absence from and insufficient pathways for study abroad, from lack of finances and parental support to the lack of social capital to foster a traveler’s identity, vlogs by students of color categorically claim their identity as travelers with performative assertions of the qualifications, characteristics, and challenges ascribed to this identity. While some vlogs do mention financial difficulties for students



Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem 119

of color, this is clearly not the case for all of the students. Many of the student vloggers have money to shop and eat at restaurants, and their parents are likewise shown as financial resources. In turn, though parental concern about racism abroad is mentioned, parents are also shown and referenced as supportive, throwing going-­away parties for their c­ hildren and excitedly driving them to and seeing them off at the airport. And whereas some students highlight their status as novitiate travelers, o­ thers perform the role of the seasoned traveler, acting as mentors and insider experts. In ­doing so, they showcase their familiarity with the cultural economy of travel, thereby endowing the black student with the social capital necessary for the traveler identity. In ­these vlogs, then, the black student traveler is not a problematic figure to fix, but an extant real­ity to learn from. What viewers learn is that ­there is no unified black study abroad student. This is as much a result of YouTube’s algorithmic pro­cess of video recommendations and user capabilities as it is the result of the varied content of the vlogs themselves. Assisted by user-­generated keywords and tagging, algorithms are responsible for grouping linked content into a play­list of videos that fall ­under the search terms. Much has been written about the dangers of YouTube’s algorithmic decision making. In contrast to arguments about the platform’s creation of new forms of visibility and demo­cratic participation, t­ here are numerous critiques of its pro­cess for sorting and recommending videos. It is considered discriminatory, highly gendered, and market driven, all of which encourage platform conformity; it is regarded as exploitative, encouraging and enabling sexually predatory be­hav­ ior; and it is critiqued as harmful to po­liti­cal and civic life, placing us all in discursive “echo chambers” that close off alternate perspectives and encourage social division.40 But for marginalized communities that have been harmed through the repetition and reverberation of biased echo chambers not of their own making, new discursive reverberations offer an impor­tant corrective. This is certainly the case for the black student interested in learning abroad. Whereas the field of study abroad discursively reiterates the black student’s absence, black study abroad vlogs resound a dif­fer­ent narrative: the black study abroad student’s existence, preparedness, and grit. Given that, according to social psychologists, “continued exposure to such similar-­thinking environments can increase a person’s predisposition to that par­tic­u­lar interest or identity and influence ­future be­hav­iors,” this is an echo chamber worth resounding.41 Moreover, though t­here is truth to both the po­liti­cal sameness of echo chambers and the conformity of vlogs, the algorithmically created black study abroad identity is far more diverse than her shaping by the study abroad

120

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

institution. Apart from gender, which aligns with the primary population of student travelers, the algorithmically defined black student abroad is a broad category. She is the “Conscious Black Girl” interested in the African diaspora in Brazil; she is acquisitive in Barcelona; she is a multifaceted vlogger who also creates makeup tutorials; she is dark and light skinned; she is mixed race or ­adopted; she is academically focused or uninterested in class; she is interested in partying with fellow Americans or more interested in meeting locals; and she has previous travel experience or none at all. Equally impor­tant, she does not always overtly define her experience through race. For example, “Study Abroad |Tips and Advice from My Experience,” “Study Abroad in Thailand | Vlog 1 | Take Off & Orientation,” “Study Abroad Vlog: Wild Day in Milan, Italy,” “20 Hour Travel Day to Greece! | Study Abroad Vlog | Travel Vlog | Tramsue,” “Study Abroad in Japan! | Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, Japan,” and “An American Girl’s Experience in Sweden | Studying Abroad in Stockholm” all feature black w ­ omen who choose to prioritize identities other than race in both their vlog titles and content. YouTube’s algorithm might connect ­these vlogs to ­others defined by race, but the viewer w ­ ill find l­ ittle in ­these vlogs about how race affected students’ study abroad experience; the few that mention race do so only marginally, occupying ­little ­running time. Instead, ­these students are interested in showcasing how they possess the broader qualifications and qualities of the student traveler. In ­doing so, they showcase the black student traveler as someone who has distinct interests and concerns outside of the context of race. Collectively, then, ­these and other vlogs that do highlight race work to paint a more holistic picture of the black student traveler. At the same time, just b­ ecause YouTube’s algorithm recommends videos to its viewers d­ oesn’t mean viewers have to abide by the platform’s suggestions. As Jean Burgess and Joshua Green observe, despite systems that seek to “or­ga­nize, cata­logue, [and] interpret” material for the viewer, YouTube is a “profoundly disordered” generator of meaning. They point out that “the way the content is actually arranged and presented on the YouTube website does not determine how the content ­will be re-­aggregated, interpreted, and arranged for display by users. The video content that constitutes the vast archive is not filtered on its way in; it is filtered in use and through repurposing and re-­ presentation elsewhere.”42 While YouTube may offer a list of what counts as the black student abroad, it is the viewer who ultimately creates the interpretative framework. Black students searching for study abroad information may choose to watch only vlogs about students of color traveling in their destination of interest; they may follow one vlogger or dozens; they may define their



Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­lem 121

search par­ameters with subcultural idioms or unique travel interests; they may look at only vendor-­produced videos; and they may choose to create their own play­lists with all dif­fer­ent combinations, including mixing vlogs by black students with vlogs by nonblack travelers. The results of ­these dif­fer­ent search pathways ­will lead to a dif­fer­ent interpretation than my own search, but one that is no less diverse in its results.

Conclusion While it is clear from the above analy­sis that black study abroad vlogs are significant forms of media accounting—­virtual declarations of the existence and actions of black student travelers—it ­isn’t clear to what degree, empirically speaking, this media accounting is making a difference in the awareness and preparation of f­uture black student travelers. Nor is it clear what role ­these vlogs might play in encouraging black students to participate in international education. I agree with Stephen Graham that it is impor­tant to “explore how the social production of electronic networks and ‘spaces’ co-­evolves with the production of material spaces and places.”43 Thus, the answers to ­these questions require dif­fer­ent, ethnographic lines of investigation. What I do know, however, is that b­ ecause travel vlogs by black students rewrite static and detrimental narratives that can have an effect on ­actual travel, it is necessary for the field of study abroad to pay attention to and learn from them. As Lee Humphreys points out, the stories and information conveyed by media accounting “help ­others understand us”: “Vari­ous social media companies, telecommunications companies, governments, and their partners can analyze, study, and examine our traces in order to better serve, protect, and market to us.”44 It is clear that, to be better at all three, the student abroad industry needs to engage with the study abroad vlogs of black travelers. Not, as chapter 1 observes about study abroad video contests, in order to co-­opt them as a form of f­ree ­labor, but rather to learn from and make practical changes as a result of them. If, as it has been argued, “attention-­seeking activities have been understood as one of the central motivations for vlogging,” it is time that the institution of study abroad starts paying attention to the stories its students are telling.45

5 ◆ SPY KIDS The Consequences of Global Citizenship in Game of Pawns

In 2014, the Counterintelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (ONCIX) jointly released Game of Pawns, a twenty-­eight-­minute film on the theme of study abroad gone awry. Directed by Tom Feliu (frequent director of FBI-­produced films), Game of Pawns tells the real-­life story of Glenn Duffie Shriver, a young, white American man who, ­after studying and ­later living abroad in Shanghai, colluded with Chinese intelligence officers to infiltrate the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in order to spy against the United States. Using the docudramatic form, the film tells the story of Shriver’s recruitment by Chinese intelligence and ultimate capture by the FBI in 2010. The video appears on both the websites and YouTube pages of the FBI and the ONCIX and, in each context, is accompanied by a host of ancillary material. This includes press material, FAQs, and a short documentary testimonial by Shriver in prison, where he was sentenced for four years ­under the Espionage Act of 1917, 18 U.S.C. §793, defined as “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.”1 Game of Pawns strikes a very dif­fer­ent tone from the study abroad media explored in the previous four chapters. Despite their distinct production contexts and goals, the study abroad media examined throughout the first part of the book all stem from a vision of study abroad as a worthy endeavor for young adults, as well as from the belief that the global worldview obtained through student travel is necessary for global peace, communication, and 122



Spy Kids 123

cooperation. W ­ hether study abroad is shown as exciting or banal, lonely or communal, demanding or comfortable, inclusive or exclusive, t­ hese media producers want us to know that, what­ever challenges students may face on their journeys, study abroad is personally rewarding and globally impor­tant. In sharp contrast, in its focus on student spy craft and treason, Game of Pawns serves less as an endorsement and cele­bration of study abroad than as a cautionary tale about its potential perils. Rather than study abroad leading to personal and global enrichment, in this FBI repre­sen­ta­tion study abroad begets personal jeopardy and geopo­liti­cal crisis. This chapter explores the reasons for this disjuncture between stakeholder visions of study abroad. Reading Game of Pawns, its surrounding discourses, and its ancillary material alongside the history of the U.S. government’s relationship to global citizenship education, I suggest that the FBI is less worried about student spy craft than about students developing the kind of global disposition that would encourage it in the first place. For study abroad advocates, global citizenship may enable empathy, communication, and affinity across cultures. However, in the chary perspective of the FBI and its affiliates, global citizenship is an ideological fertilizer for divided loyalties and national betrayal. Game of Pawns thus reveals the tension in national discourses between the promotion of global educational exchange, on the one hand, and the globally minded philosophies, values, and practices that shape it, on the other. In ­doing so, Game of Pawns exposes the limits of the government’s support for educational practices that ask students to connect with other cultures outside of the framework of U.S. national interests.

Cautionary Tales In its cautionary tone, Game of Pawns is not alone. Circulating alongside the numerous celebratory and promotional videos about study abroad online is cautionary study abroad media meant to provide information, resources, and awareness about the potential dangers of studying on foreign soil. For example, ClearCause Foundation offers a series of glossy public ser­vice announcements that draw attention to the hidden threats of student travel, such as poor homestay conditions, an un­regu­la­ted study abroad industry, and health crises in foreign locations. In turn, Sara’s Wish Foundation features on its website Know Before You Go, a short documentary that highlights the dangers awaiting students traveling on international roads, including hazardous road conditions, unsafe d­ rivers, and roadside criminals.2 Like ­these cautionary tales,

124

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

the stated purpose of Game of Pawns is to improve students’ experiences by providing them with information and resources about specific threats when traveling internationally. According to the FBI, “All too often, administrators and parents focus entirely on the tremendous benefits of [study abroad] programs without fully appreciating the potential ­hazards.”3 Game of Pawns was thus jointly produced by the FBI and ONCIX as part of both organ­izations’ campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of American students getting recruited for espionage activities by foreign intelligence. This is an awareness campaign that, according to the investigative journalist Daniel Golden, is grounded in real­ity. In his book Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI, and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit Universities, Golden argues that universities are currently a “front line for espionage.”4 His research shows how intelligence ser­vices, particularly from the United States, China, Rus­sia, and Cuba, regularly troll students and faculty from foreign and domestic campuses in order to recruit “assets” who can provide sensitive information, steal competitive research, and infiltrate government and corporate entities. Calling academia “a favored arena for the secret jousting of spy versus spy,” Golden highlights just how action packed this arena truly is, revealing how it currently serves as a staging ground for all manner of global spy craft.5 According to Golden, foreign students and governments easily steal American government-­ funded scientific research; U.S. and foreign intelligence ser­vices stage academic conferences in order to poach sensitive information from scholars and persuade ­those with scientific and technological information to defect from hostile regimes; American universities regularly turn a blind eye to national security concerns in order to attract international students who pay full tuition and to build financially lucrative outposts overseas; intelligence officers across the globe attempt to recruit both foreign-­born and ideologically sympathetic students and faculty as assets, seeking to flatter or intimidate them into ser­vice; and, in the wake of 9/11, American universities collaborate with U.S. national security agencies in a manner not seen since the post-­ WWII era. “Invited or not, openly or not,” Golden remarks, “U.S. intelligence touches virtually ­every facet of academic life.”6 It is in this context of high-­stakes academic spy games that the FBI and ONCIX produced Game of Pawns. The FBI launched the short film to much fanfare, inviting special guests to its premiere, creating a host of Game of Pawns–­themed swag (featuring the slogan “­Don’t be a pawn”), and using local FBI field offices to urge universities across the nation to screen the film.7 In response to this request, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, one of the leading organ­izations dedicated to international learning, published



Spy Kids 125

recommendations on how universities should proceed. While NAFSA did not discourage its members from screening the film, its recommendations ­were hardly a ringing endorsement. Instead of blanket support for the film, the guidelines suggest study abroad stakeholders weigh ­whether their program’s or university’s geographic positioning and academic profile “put [their] students at risk for recruitment,” w ­ hether showing the video would “add value” to what they already do in predeparture orientation, and w ­ hether ­there is enough time to show it. NAFSA’s conclusion was that “even though your institution may want to collaborate with the FBI, it is an institutional decision on how best to use their resources.”8 For many institutions, the decision was to not show the film. Campus screenings appear to be minimal, and promotion of the film to student travelers is mostly buried in university websites as part of “recommended” predeparture resources on travel and safety issues.9 Further, Golden notes that the FBI’s attempts to get universities to screen Game of Pawns ­were generally met with re­sis­tance. Some study abroad administrators thought the film sent the wrong message to students interested in cross-­cultural contact. ­Others thought that it d­ idn’t paint a full enough picture of student recruitment by intelligence ser­vices. One administrator pointed out that if the FBI wants students to be aware of recruitment by foreign agents, it needs to disclose the U.S. government’s ongoing use of universities for asset conscription as well.10 On top of this, o­ thers prob­ably found the film too embarrassing to warrant a showing. Game of Pawns has been called “unintentionally hilarious,” “cartoonish,” “a bit of a stinker,” and “as dumb as it sounds.”11 For anyone who has worked with college students, it is hard to imagine them engaging with the film on a serious level. It is also likely that o­ thers saw this as an awareness campaign disproportionate to the data fueling it. Though Golden’s research reveals that recruitment of American students by foreign agents is a real threat, evidence of American students actually engaging in espionage during study abroad is thin, with Duffie Shriver serving as the book’s only concrete example.12 The FBI’s own lit­er­a­ture on study abroad spy craft does nothing to point to greater evidence. Despite its title, the majority of the FBI’s informational brochure National Security Concerns for Study Abroad Students focuses on the threat of espionage from foreign agents and assets on American soil. Only a few paragraphs are geared t­ oward the risk of foreign intelligence recruitment during study abroad, and, as in Golden’s account, Duffie Shriver is the only case highlighted.13 This is also the case in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Intelligence Note: Preventing the Loss of Academic Research. While this report states that

126

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

“US students abroad have become involved in espionage activities in the past,” once again, Duffie Shriver is the only example offered.14 Additionally, although Game of Pawns pre­sents Duffie Shriver as a student abroad, the real Duffie Shriver had already graduated by the time he was approached to spy on the United States. This d­ oesn’t mean that the risk of recruitment from foreign intelligence officers during study abroad i­ sn’t a real possibility. But what it does suggest is that spy craft may not be the greatest risk for student travelers. Indeed, according to Gregory F. Malveaux, author of Look before Leaping: Risks, Liabilities, and Repair of Study Abroad in Higher Education, the biggest threats for students abroad are medical issues, sexual assault, and supervisory neglect, followed by growing concerns around identity theft, cybersecurity, and global terrorism.15 ­These risks are hardly insignificant, but nowhere in Malveaux’s account of study abroad risk and liability is t­ here evidence of student espionage. In fact, according to a Department of Defense study from 2017, “­there has been a steady decline over time in the proportion of espionage cases begun overseas,” with “only 18% beg[inning] outside of the U.S.” since 1990.16 For Golden, higher education’s refusal to engage with Game of Pawns is an example of academia’s failure to take the issues of foreign and domestic spying seriously. He cautions that academics fail to do so “at their peril,” noting that “it’s likely that some foreign spies remain hidden in U.S. student bodies or faculties ­today.”17 Still, given that espionage among American study abroad students is minimal, it is worth investigating why the FBI put so much money into this par­tic­u­lar cautionary tale, especially when the facts of academic espionage according to the FBI’s own white paper “Higher Education and National Security” point to greater threats on home turf.18 Of course, for the FBI, the risk of one student spy is one spy too many. But if a student is more likely to have their credit card stolen during study abroad than to steal state secrets, more likely to get infected by foreign insects than foreign spies, some other concern must account for the FBI’s production of Game of Pawns. It is to this I now turn.

License to Film The FBI’s involvement in filmmaking and other media is well documented by historians and film scholars.19 From as early as the 1930s, the FBI u­ nder the direction of J. Edgar Hoover saw the value of media publicity and found numerous ways to promote the FBI in Hoover’s desired image. With numerous contacts in Hollywood, including studio heads, producers, and journal-



Spy Kids 127

ists, and a division dedicated to publicity, the FBI was covertly and unofficially involved in many film and tele­vi­sion productions. Through the Crime Rec­ ords Division and l­ater, during the Cold War, the Mass Media Program, the FBI covertly read scripts, provided access (albeit l­ imited) to case files, squashed undesirable images, vetoed certain actors, placed special agents on film sets, monitored and created files on film and tele­vi­sion productions (including their cast and crew), and offered or withheld support for proj­ects depending on FBI approval.20 In addition to its influence on and collaboration with cultural producers, the FBI also has a long history of its own internal filmmaking. In the Hoover years, this filmmaking was often a direct reaction to unauthorized images that Hoover had no control over. For example, This Is Your  F.B.I., a tele­vi­sion series airing from 1945 ­until 1953, was produced by the FBI in order to ­counter unauthorized repre­sen­ta­tions such as Top Secrets of the F.B.I. and I Was a Communist for the F.B.I.—­programs that Hoover saw as presenting inaccurate and sensational repre­sen­ta­tions of the bureau.21 But with names such as Stay Alert, Stay Alive: The Techniques and Mechanics of Arrest and Examination of Soils and Minerals, Hairs and Fibers, Toolmarks, and Tire and Shoe Impressions—­ both circa the 1960s—­most historical FBI-­produced films ­were educational training documentaries made for a ­limited, law enforcement audience.22 ­Today, FBI involvement in media productions is more transparent, with a staff—­the Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs Unit (IPPAU)—­dedicated to supporting FBI-­themed media proj­ects. Part of the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs, this unit works with media producers who want to “create an accurate portrayal of the bureau.”23 Unsurprisingly for anyone familiar with popu­lar culture’s love affair with the FBI, ­these requests are numerous; in 2012, the FBI received 728 requests from media producers seeking support on FBI-­themed proj­ects.24 The FBI also continues to make educational training films for its community, now with state-­of-­the-­art equipment, a sizable bud­get, and its own production studio at the FBI Acad­emy.25 The FBI Training Network (FBITN) regularly creates instructional programming featuring FBI experts talking about specific law enforcement topics. With titles such as “Interviewing ­Children,” “Death Investigations,” and “Muslim Culture for Law Enforcement,” the majority of t­ hese training programs are designed for law enforcement officers.26 At the same time, the con­temporary culture of digital video sharing has enabled the FBI to continue its historical practice of creating films for the general public, but now on a much broader scale and completely on its own terms.27 The FBI’s YouTube page boasts close to 600 videos, featuring every­thing from low-­stakes instructional and promotional videos

128

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

(e.g., “New Sit-­Up Protocol for FBI Mandatory Physical Fitness Test” and “Meet Dolce, the FBI’s First Therapy Dog”) to high-­stakes media appearing ­under the category of “seeking information” (e.g., “Help Us Catch the Potomac River Rapist”).28 Alongside other forms of media publicity, ­these videos serve dual purposes. On the one hand, they work to “increase public awareness” in the ser­vice of crime prevention and to garner the “public’s assistance in [FBI] investigations.” On the other hand, they continue the FBI’s long-­standing investment in controlling its publicity and branding.29 In the bureau’s logic, the latter is essential to the former; according to the FBI’s Public Affairs Manual: “If members of the public view the FBI as effective and trustworthy, they are more likely to call in tips, or return a Special Agent’s telephone call, or other­wise cooperate with the FBI.”30 Raising awareness and building cooperation are central driving forces ­behind the production of Game of Pawns. According to its website, the FBI “would like American students traveling overseas to view [Game of Pawns] . . . ​ before leaving the U.S. so ­they’re able to recognize when ­they’re being targeted and/or recruited.”31 To capture its intended audience, the film’s “Communication and Strategy Plan” outlined such marketing tactics as a Facebook presence, a podcast to distribute to college radio stations, a web link to college study abroad programs, and downloadable film posters intended for student dorms.32 Through this publicity campaign the FBI not only sought to raise awareness of the threat of foreign recruitment but also to encourage students to actively assist in impeding spy craft. In an accompanying link to the film—­“Advice for U.S. College Students Abroad”—­the FBI asks students to report suspicious be­hav­ior they encounter while abroad to the U.S. embassy or consulate or, once back in the states, to their local FBI office.33 Game of Pawns’ dramatic narrative works to illustrate what counts as suspicious activity while the incorporation of documentary footage of Duffie Shriver in prison demonstrates what happens when students ­don’t heed the FBI’s warning. To make Game of Pawns, the FBI partnered with Rocket Media Group, a multimedia production com­pany located in Fairfax, ­Virginia, with which it had previously partnered to produce the film Betrayed (Tom Feliu, 2011, 39 mins.), a short narrative made for the intelligence community about a double agent in the FBI.34 A year a­ fter Game of Pawns’ release in 2014, the FBI released another “based on a true story” spy film made by Rocket Media Group: The Com­pany Man: Protecting Amer­i­ca’s Secrets (2015, 36 mins.), also directed by Tom Feliu. Part of a nationwide campaign about the threat of economic espionage, The Com­pany Man is “aimed at educating anyone with a trade secret about the threat and how they can help mitigate it.”35



Spy Kids 129

In both espionage films aimed at a broad audience—­The Com­pany Man and Game of Pawns—­American greed and the Chinese ability to cater to it motivate other­wise innocent Americans to consider betraying national security. The Com­pany Man revolves around the story of Robert, a midlevel engineer at a glass manufacturing com­pany in Iowa who is passed over for a promotion. Robert’s bruised ego, along with his need to pay for his youn­gest d­ aughter’s looming college expenses and a broken-­down car, leads him to consider betraying his employee noncompete agreement by selling his com­pany’s confidential glass manufacturing formula to two Chinese businessmen seeking to infiltrate his com­pany. Believing he has been headhunted for his engineering skills, Robert toys with the idea of taking a job in China and is initially seduced by the Chinese men’s offer of $200,000 to turn over his com­pany’s glass formula. Coming to his senses, Robert rejects the bribe and informs his corporate bosses about the Chinese businessmen’s scheme. They in turn reach out to the FBI, which captures the criminals. If The Com­pany Man foregrounds how American loyalty overcomes American greed, Game of Pawns reveals what happens when our greed gets the better of us. Like Robert, Glenn Duffie Shriver is offered money to spy against his own country. The premise of the film, which is established in the first three minutes, is that Glenn wants to stay in Shanghai for a longer study abroad but has no money to do so. In a voice-­over set to three dif­fer­ent activities and locations that define Glenn’s life in Shanghai—­partying with Chinese ­women at an upscale nightclub, walking confidently around East China Normal University campus, and working at his computer—­Glenn informs the viewer: “So, ­there it was: my dilemma. To stay in Shanghai, I needed a visa and a job. Then one morning, I spotted an online ad. The Shanghai government was looking for American students to write papers on Chinese-­American relations. That’s how I met Amanda.” Amanda, an attractive Chinese ­woman in her thirties, meets Glenn at a chic Shanghai restaurant and pre­sents herself to him as someone who “wants to make Shanghai the business center of the world.” She informs Glenn that in order to do so her government “need[s] to know how Westerners perceive us as a country and as a city.” Glenn agrees to write essays, at US$120 each, that w ­ ill help the Chinese government with its goal. ­After writing several essays and forming a strong friendship with Amanda, Glenn is introduced to Amanda’s colleagues—­Mr. Tang and Mr. Wu. ­These men encourage Glenn to work for them, telling him that he ­will be central to bringing “peace and prosperity to the world.” At first, they offer him money for seemingly ­doing nothing—­a quarterly stipend of $2,500 simply ­because “they know that Shanghai is a very expensive city,” and they want to

130

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

help him so he can “focus on [his] studies.” Over time, they encourage Glenn in his goal to work for the State Department, and even ­after he fails the State Department test, the Chinese officials encourage him to apply to the CIA, giving him $40,000 to do so. Greed is blatantly advanced as a motive for Glenn’s willingness to consider espionage against the United States in a number of dialogic and visual ways. Glenn makes several statements throughout the film that reveal his concern for money over national loyalty. When Glenn’s friend, a fellow American studying abroad, questions Glenn about the purpose of the Chinese government’s interest in American students writing essays on the topic of U.S.-­China relations, Glenn flippantly responds by saying: “Uh, who cares? It’s just an essay. As long as they pay.” ­Later, over an image of Glenn counting the money that Mr. Tang offers him for living and school expenses, Glenn states in a voice-­ over: “It was twenty-­five hundred dollars. I was stunned, but what was I g­ oing to do, give it back? It was ­free money, no strings attached.” And ­after Glenn fails the State Department test and considers giving up his goals of working for the U.S. government, he happily accepts an envelope of consolation money from Mr. Tang, who tells him that the “State Department may not appreciate such a promising young man . . . ​but we do.” Importantly, Glenn is not simply a passive recipient of the Chinese officials’ gifts of money. As time goes by, he becomes the architect of t­ hese gifts. When Mr. Wu asks Glenn to consider working for the CIA in order to provide them with “information to improve relations” between the United States and China, Glenn uses this request to begin asking his new friends for money. Glenn’s condition for spying is $40,000 in start-up money, which the Chinese official is willing to pay. Glenn’s greed is illustrated by an overhead shot of him lying on his bed with stacks of money covering his upper torso, coupled with a voice-­over explaining his insatiable appetite for money: “Why did I do it?” Glenn says, “I ­don’t know. I guess it was just hard to turn off the tap.” As if ­these images and narrative w ­ eren’t enough to foreground Glenn’s greed, the film ends with excerpts of an interview with the real Glenn Duffie Shriver in federal prison. As the credits roll, the incarcerated Shriver tells the viewer: “They say every­one has their price, and you know, when ­you’re being told ‘Hey, you d­ on’t have to do anything about it . . . ​we just want to be your friend. ­Here’s ten thousand dollars, no big deal.’ That’s hard to say no to.” This inclusion of documentary footage at the end of the film works to corroborate the film’s overarching narrative about Shriver’s greed functioning as his primary motivation for betrayal.



Spy Kids 131

Yet, if in the s­ ister FBI film The Com­pany Man Robert did not succumb to his desire for money and betray his com­pany and country, what lets greed get the better of Glenn? Arguably, the stressors placed on Robert—­payments for a broken-­down car and college tuition for his ­daughter—­are represented as far greater than t­hose placed on Glenn, who is depicted as a carefree study abroad student whose only source of stress is how he ­will continue to pay for his travel adventure. But it is precisely this difference that fuels Game of Pawns’ story and the FBI’s concerns about disloyalty. For the FBI, greed alone is not a sufficient catalyst for disloyalty; ­after all, many Americans are strapped for cash but d­ on’t become spies. That Glenn betrayed his country while Robert ­didn’t suggests that, for the FBI, disloyal be­hav­ior is the result of something beyond greed. That something, I suggest, is a global worldview.

Act Global, Think American This is not to say that the government i­ sn’t interested in globally engaged students. As numerous scholars have outlined, the government’s promotion of and participation in study abroad span the twentieth and twenty-­first centuries, so much so that, as the study abroad historian William W. Hoffa argues, “the field of international education would not have developed as it did without US government initiatives and support.”36 According to Talya Zemach-­ Bersin, t­ hese initiatives and support began in the late 1930s when U.S. foreign policy makers co-­opted the language and practices developed by “liberal internationalists”—­ global friendship, world citizenship, goodwill across nations, educational exchange, curricular internationalization—­and turned them into “tools for national defense, national security, and governmental propaganda.”37 Drawing on the ideas and infrastructure developed by ­these globally minded private citizens, the U.S. government rolled out a number of initiatives beginning in the late 1930s that openly linked student exchange to foreign policy goals. Through a charm offensive of study abroad, student travelers w ­ ere mobilized “as affect technicians, fanning out to therapeutically adjust how the p­ eople of other countries felt about the United States.”38 Through public-­private collaborations such as the Experiment in International Living’s Good Neighbor Mission (1941), in which the United States sent students to Latin Amer­ic­ a as part of its Good Neighbor Policy, and Operation Understanding (1947–1949), in which the U.S. Department of State sent over 1,000 students and educators to war-­torn Eu­rope, student travelers ­were

132

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

thought to be able to combat the ste­reo­type of the United States as a warmongering bully, orient ­people of the world ­toward democracy and capitalism, and convince other cultures of the benefits of Amer­i­ca’s benevolent leadership.39 This strategy peaked at the height of the Cold War when, as Liping Bu observes, a broad range of governmental units began to integrate educational exchange into their agendas.40 Government involvement in sending students (and faculty) abroad was so strong at this time that, according to Bu, “state imperatives commanded the private sector’s planning, programming, and practice of cultural exchange.”41 During the second half of the twentieth c­ entury, the strategic use of study abroad students waxed and waned but never ceased, as numerous congressional acts and government initiatives continued to overtly or covertly tie support of international education to foreign policy goals, firmly affixing national interests to study abroad for the foreseeable f­ uture.42 To be sure, the po­liti­cal strategies and motivations of educational exchange throughout the entire twentieth c­ entury ­were not without controversy, nor did they always sit well with every­one, particularly ­those in the private and university sectors who provided the ­human, infrastructural, and often financial resources for ­these initiatives. At the same time, Margaret O’Mara argues that the long-­standing presence of politics in international education has long made it function as a “parastatal agent”—­a nongovernmental entity whose programs work in the ser­vice of national interests.43 As national interests shift alongside geopo­liti­cal climates, the foreign policy uses of study abroad students have likewise shifted over time. In the post9/11 climate marked by globalization and global terrorism, the new clarion calls for student global engagement are economic competitiveness and national security, superseding but not erasing the cultural diplomacy rationales of previous eras. Widespread concerns about Americans’ lack of ability to compete in the new global marketplace, while hardly new, animate calls for students’ global engagement with renewed vigor. Reports, congressional acts, and scholarships emphasize the importance of sending Americans abroad in order to secure Amer­ic­a’s economic leadership, participation in the multinational global workforce, and advantage in science and technological innovation. In 2005, the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Commission released an educational manifesto about the importance of study abroad, citing that global skills are needed if “[American] corporations are to succeed in a world in which one American job in six is tied to international trade.”44 This need has only increased over time for stakeholders in global education. A 2018 NAFSA white paper titled “The Economic Imperative of a Global Education” makes a



Spy Kids 133

similar argument: “A mid-­level man­ag­er at a local packaging or bottling plant may never need to travel outside of the country for her job, but the forces of globalization are such that in order to be successful, she needs to understand the world and how her town, state, and country fit within that world.”45 In both of ­these reports, an internationalized campus, including a study abroad experience, is regarded as the best educational pathway to achieve this much-­ needed global mind-­set. In turn, creating a pool of foreign language speakers in languages critical to national security is likewise central to the global education legislation and practices of the post–­Cold War and post-9/11 eras. Already a governmental priority since 1958, when the passage of Title VI of the National Defense Education Act committed federal funding for language and Area Studies, the training of global specialists in less commonly taught languages has taken on new po­liti­cal urgency in the era of globalization. Financial scholarships for students studying languages in world regions critical to national security are available through both the Department of Defense’s National Security Education Program and the Department of State.46 Though the Department of Defense’s support of international education has not been without controversy, according to John  M. Keller and Maritheresa Frain, in the changing landscape of security in the 1980s and 1990s, marked by the Persian Gulf War in 1991, “­there was consensus that it was critical for the United States to increase opportunities for American students to study in geo-­strategically underserved destinations.”47 The importance of such programs was again highlighted in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when it became apparent that the United States lacked knowledge of geopo­liti­cally impor­tant languages that would be impor­tant in the war on terror.48 In 2006, President George W. Bush introduced the National Security Language Initiative “as a broad-­base initiative critical to national security.”49 Since this time, government support for study abroad has included national security as one of its dimensions, dramatically altering, for example, the percentage of students who choose to study abroad in geopo­liti­cally impor­tant countries across the ­Middle East and North Africa.50

The Consequences of Global Citizenship If the historical sketch above points to the government’s long-­standing promotion of study abroad and global engagement, it also reveals that it does so solely on its own terms. Liping Bu’s observation that during the Cold War

134

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

“educational exchange for educational purposes hardly ever gained support of the government” is equally relevant t­ oday, as the government’s investment in study abroad is not motivated by the broader pedagogical concerns of the study abroad field ­unless tethered to economic competitiveness and national security.51 For example, Wenhao Diao and Emma Trentman argue that the U.S. government ­isn’t interested in supporting foreign language education in order for students to learn about language as “dynamic and developing” and “activated in interaction,” but rather, for the purpose of “linking communication with competition between nations.”52 Similarly, the educational concerns explored in previous chapters are valuable only inasmuch as they further American interests. But the government’s lack of investment in the pedagogical goals of study abroad is by no means an indication of its impartiality ­toward them. On the contrary, when they exist beyond their function as an arm of foreign policy, the educational goals and philosophies of study abroad are articulated as having potentially dangerous consequences. This is clearly demonstrated in Game of Pawns and its ancillary material, which offer mixed messages about study abroad’s best practices. Though stakeholders in the field do not always agree about what t­ hese are, tacit consensus and received wisdom suggest that experiential learning, cross-­cultural relationships, and cultural and language immersion—­all fueled by longer rather than shorter experiences abroad—­ provide the most effective scaffolding for the successful development of a global worldview and its subsequent benefits.53 On the one hand, the FBI appears to be in f­ avor of ­these practices. According to its website, “The US government supports US students’ travel abroad” ­because it provides “an opportunity to learn about foreign countries, customs, and cultures and acquire specialized linguistic, technical, and leadership skills.” The government also “supports US students’ participation in employment opportunities while abroad to gain valuable work and resume building experiences,” and it “proactively hires US students who have acquired foreign language and country expertise while studying overseas.” On the other hand, t­hese statements of support appear on a page called “The Key to US Student Safety Overseas,” which expresses far more concern about educational exchange than support for it. Informing readers about the threat and steps foreign operatives take to recruit students, the FBI warns students that “foreign intelligence ser­vices develop initial relationships with US students overseas u­ nder seemingly innocuous pretexts such as job or internship opportunities, paid paper-­writing engagements, language exchanges, and cultural immersion programs.”54 Thus, in the same space in which the FBI encourages students to take advantage of cultural immersion,



Spy Kids 135

opportunities for employment and internships, second language acquisition, and technical expertise while abroad, it also warns students about the potential criminality under­lying ­these “seemingly innocuous” opportunities. In order for students to protect themselves, the FBI offers them the following advice: • Be skeptical of “money for nothing” opportunities that seem “too good to be true” while abroad. • Be cautious of foreigners who show undue interest in your personal or ­family background and your ­future ­career plans. • Be cautious of individuals who offer “­free f­ avors,” particularly t­ hose involving government pro­cesses such as issuing visas and residence permits. • Minimize personal information that you reveal about yourself, particularly online through social media. • Minimize your contact with foreigners who have questionable government or criminal affiliations. • Properly report money or compensation you receive while abroad. • Report suspicious activity to your local U.S. embassy or consulate’s Regional Security Officer while abroad. • Report suspicious activity to your local FBI field office a­ fter returning to the United States.55 In the face of foreign espionage, ­these guidelines appear reasonable. But as guiding princi­ples for global engagement in the context of study abroad, they are deeply troubling. In direct opposition to many of the pedagogical goals of study abroad, the FBI’s guidelines encourage, and thereby predetermine, an antagonistic and suspicious relationship between students and t­ hose they meet along their travels. Students are warned to be skeptical of locals who show interest in their lives, cautious of p­ eople who offer demonstrations of kindness, ­limited in their candidness with o­ thers, and suspicious of p­ eople whose values and experiences ­aren’t culturally normative. Instead of encouraging students to immerse themselves in foreign cultures and open themselves up to the unknown, students are put on the offensive, potentially turning cultural differences that are likely unfamiliar into something to document and report. And rather than finding commonality with p­ eople of the world through intercultural understanding, shared experience, or empathy, students are tacitly instructed to keep their distance from global actors, who are de facto rendered suspicious as a result of their interest in American youth, generosity ­toward foreigners, or “questionable” affiliations.

136

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

In pinpointing ­these specific experiences and encounters as potential threats, the FBI reveals its bias against the institutional rhe­toric and practices of study abroad that are not u­ nder its jurisdiction. On the one hand, in the context of study abroad best practices, Game of Pawns’ character is theoretically the ideal candidate for student travel. Unlike students who simply want to use study abroad as an opportunity for tourist experiences, Glenn wants to immerse himself in the language. From the outset, we learn that Glenn is a serious and enthusiastic language student. At the beginning of the film, over an image of Glenn confidently strutting through the campus of East China Normal University, he tells the viewer in a voice-­over: “Since my first Spanish class in ­middle school, I never met a language I ­didn’t like. Spanish, French, Mandarin—­I loved them all. Ju­nior year in college, I got to live the dream, a year abroad in Shanghai studying language and philosophy. . . . ​It was ­going to be the best year of my life.” Furthermore, Glenn takes advantage of his experience in Shanghai to immerse himself in the culture and make local connections and friendships, just as the study abroad field desires for its student travelers. His search for a job so he can stay in Shanghai beyond his study abroad term shows initiative to integrate into the community, and a­ fter spending some time with Chinese government officials Amanda and Mr. Tang, Glenn describes their relationship as friendly. To confirm this, the film includes a brief scene of Amanda teasing Glenn about his numerous Chinese girlfriends as they take a leisurely stroll through the streets of Shanghai. On the other hand, in Game of Pawns, the best practices of study abroad—­experiential learning, cross-­cultural relationships, and cultural and language immersion—­ can hardly be called “resume building experiences” in the manner meant by the FBI. Instead, Glenn’s proficiency with Mandarin, desire to work and live in Shanghai, and openness to building relationships with Chinese p­ eople lead him directly into the hands of foreign agents. But even the FBI’s own rhe­toric around study abroad backfires, revealing similar anxiety about its internal advocacy of global engagement. As the FBI encourages students on its website, Glenn takes full advantage of cultural immersion by gaining proficiency in Mandarin and making employment connections. And, as the FBI outlines as a possibility for students with expertise in foreign countries, Glenn has the stated goal of working for the government upon his return from his study abroad. In a meeting with Amanda and Mr. Tang, he informs them that he has “always dreamed of working in international relations” and has an interest in taking the exam to work at the State Department at the U.S. consulate. Yet instead of ­these actions serving in the national interests of the United States, all of t­hese activities lead to Glenn’s



Spy Kids 137

disloyal be­hav­ior. And on this score, the FBI is unequivocal: Glenn’s actions ­were a betrayal of his country, and Game of Pawns is meant to warn students against taking the same path. The consequences of such be­hav­ior are made clear by the appearance of the real Shriver in prison at the end of the film. Seated in a chair and wearing his prison uniform, he informs the viewer about the consequences of a study abroad gone wrong: “I’ll never be able to work for the U.S. government. Prob­ably a lot of the major businesses ­will not be interested in hiring me. Th ­ ere are definitely a lot of negative effects associated with being a felon. And that’s a stigma I’m g­ oing to have to, you know, beat down.”56 The FBI’s agenda h­ ere is clear: in order to not end up like Shriver, students must be cautious global actors, engaging with ­people of the world in ­limited and circumscribed ways. American nationality, loyalty to country, and patriotic duty must be prioritized above all ­else, including desires for cultural immersion, global friendships, mutual prob­lem solving, and shared values. Importantly, this mandate asks student travelers to draw a clear boundary around their national identity, an idea that runs ­counter to one of the major objectives of study abroad. In par­tic­u­lar, since the late 1990s, the call for students to see themselves as global citizens has been a central part of North American study abroad academic discussions, marketing rhe­toric, and institutional mandates.57 Study abroad programs regularly cite their products as ave­nues to developing global citizenship, and leading thinkers in the field call its pursuit “valuable and pos­si­ble” and “the only kind of [citizenship] that makes sense” in an “increasingly interconnected and interdependent world.”58 Represented by a variety of nomenclature that, despite nuances, are often collapsed together, including “world citizens,” “flexible citizens,” “cosmopolitans,” “post national citizenship,” “multiple citizenship,” and “transnational citizens,” the concept of global citizenship implores students to identify, empathize, and collaborate with the ­human race rather than with local, racial, ethnic, religious, geo­graph­ic­ al, or national affiliations. For example, according to Hans Schattle, global citizenship requires “recognizing sources of global interdependence and a ‘shared fate’ that implicates humanity and all life on the planet, and looking beyond distinctions, at least in one’s mind, between insiders and outsiders in order to view the h­ uman experience in more universal terms.”59 Likewise, David Killick argues that a global citizen is “primarily someone who identifies him or herself as dwelling among (equally h­ uman) global ­others,” while Nadine Dolby suggests a global citizen is someone who does not have “allegiance to a par­tic­u­lar world polity . . . ​but [rather to] a set of social solidarities which extend globally.”60 And Rebecca Hovey and Adam Weinberg claim that global citizenship invites students to “expand their allegiances to

138

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

wider, multiple, and overlapping transnational communities.”61 Key to ­these definitions of global citizenship, then, is an active remapping and broadening of identity and identifications. Among practices of global citizenship education, study abroad is regarded as one of the best ways to foster this transformation. Proponents of global citizenship believe that through immersive intercultural encounters with ­people of the world, students can develop greater empathy t­oward, identification with, and allegiance to a broader range of global actors, the result of which, they argue, w ­ ill lead to a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world. Just how broad and multiple t­ hese new allegiances can be is up for debate. Ian Davies and Graham Pike’s use of the phrase “multiple citizenship” reflects their belief in the development of numerous and “concurrent allegiances.”62 Nadine Dolby also notes the possibility of “the proliferation of multiple affiliations,” but she also argues against seeing this as a rejection of “the significance of the national.”63 Likewise, Hovey and Weinberg make it clear that even as students can take on new affiliations and identities, they maintain “the responsibility of their own primary citizenship identity.”64 But ­others argue that allegiance to the primary affiliation is no guarantee. Grant H. Cornwell and Eve W. Stoddard point out that “a cosmopolite’s own local or national identities are not held with blind commitment, but subject to evaluation and comparison with ­those of ­others.”65 Similarly, Davies and Pike argue that even as multiple citizenship invites one to sustain affiliations with dif­fer­ent identities, “­there may be tensions and the strength of allegiance may differ from one level to another, as well as change over time.”66 Shifts in the intensity of national allegiance and identification are confirmed by at least one large-­scale, multicountry quantitative study conducted by Gal Ariely; according to the study’s data, the higher the level of a country’s globalization, the less patriotic its citizens are, including their willingness to fight for their country.67 For ­those invested in the outcomes of study abroad, the idea and practices of global citizenship, what­ever the nomenclature, are high stakes. Some regard it as the moral and ethical center of education abroad, especially in the context of Trump-­era nationalism and isolationism.68 ­Others see it as a necessity to maintain world peace in the context of the po­liti­cal and economic instabilities caused by the forces of globalization. David Killick argues that the development of “global selves” is “fundamental to getting along together, to seeing each other as equally ­human.”69 Likewise, Nadine Dolby argues that “citizens with an exclusionary, closed notion of the relationship between nation and state . . . ​may seek to create one type of world, while citizens who have a more open, inclusive, sense of citizenship may strug­gle to create another.”70



Spy Kids 139

To be sure, none of ­these thinkers buy into an uncritical notion of global citizenship, and they all are aware of the numerous critiques of it. For example, the idea of “acquiring” global citizenship through study abroad has been critiqued by Michael Woolf as a “glib and hyperbolic marketing claim” that is detrimental to the substance and practice of international exchange.71 In turn, Talya Zemach-­Bersin lambasts global citizenship as an uncritical identity and practice that nurtures Americans’ sense of “universal entitlement” to unfettered travel and citizenship wherever they choose, all the while masking the inequities of global mobility and the colonial worldviews embedded in its practice.72 Thus, as much as global citizenship remains at the forefront of study abroad discourses, ­there is no consensus on and much internal debate about its meaning, value, and function. But even as it is critiqued within the field, it is clear that, for many in the government, the rhe­toric and practices of global citizenship are neither hollow nor innocuous. To the contrary, philosophies and practices of global citizenship that advance multiple allegiances are seen as pos­si­ble threats to the nation. This is made clear in a 2017 report commissioned by the Department of Defense on the characteristics of American spies. Titled The Expanding Spectrum of Espionage by Americans, 1947–2015, this report cites globalization and global citizenship education as two primary f­actors responsible for changes in the characteristics of American spies since 1990. Whereas before the end of the Cold War, money was the primary motivation for Americans to commit espionage, in the post-­Soviet era money only slightly edges out “divided loyalties,” which is defined by the report “as a commitment by American citizens to another country or cause they put before the U.S.”73 Indeed, the number of ­people who received no payment for acts of espionage increased from 35 ­percent between 1947 and 1979 to 68 ­percent between 1990 and 2015.74 According to the report, the increase in divided loyalties is the result of a globalized world: “Globalization affects many dimensions of life, and is especially apparent in areas related to espionage. . . . ​It can influence the recruitment of spies and the likelihood that ­people w ­ ill volunteer to commit espionage as a consequence of the ongoing trend t­ oward a global culture, with its easy international transmission of ideas, civic ideals, and loosening allegiances of citizenship.”75 Of par­tic­ul­ar concern in the report is how the “globalization of cultures”—­borne from the global circulation of language, art, and politics—­ serves as a stepping-­stone t­oward pledging allegiance to world rather than national citizenship.76 Using language straight out of global education rhe­toric, the report defines world citizenship as a form of citizenship that “emphasizes

140

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

the fundamental interconnectedness of all ­things and the reduction of cultural distinctions, [and] sees po­liti­cal and geo­graph­i­cal bound­aries as increasingly irrelevant.”77 The report’s concerns about globalization leading to divided loyalties are demonstrated with data. According to the study, the number of U.S.-­born spies with foreign connections—­defined as “business or professional relationships”—­more than tripled ­after 1990.78 This anxiety about the perils of global citizenship is evidenced in Game of Pawns, which visually and narratively renders Glenn’s betrayal as a result of his physical and ideological disconnect from the United States and its national values. This is especially apparent when set against the ­sister FBI-­produced spy film The Com­pany Man, which clearly paints Robert’s patriotism as the result of his ideological, familial, and physical rootedness in Amer­i­ca and American national identity. Robert’s heroic status is highlighted at the end of the film with a culturally familiar scene of f­ amily unity around the tele­vi­sion. Opening on a close-up of a hand in a bowl of popcorn, the image glides up to the giddy face of Robert’s teenage d­ aughter, who gleefully yells “It’s on! It’s on!” as the camera shifts focus to Robert and his wife cuddled together on the couch with their own bowl of popcorn. Though this scene is coded as ­family entertainment viewing time, they have instead gathered around the tele­vi­sion to watch the news. Together they watch as a news reporter’s voice narrates the story of the defeat of economic espionage against a U.S. com­ pany. ­After the reporter reveals how an American employee worked with the FBI to take down the spies, Robert’s d­ aughter, now on the phone bragging about her ­father, exclaims, “Yeah ­we’re watching right now. My dad rules!” Equally impressed, Robert’s wife, now shown in a close-up with Robert, turns to him and exclaims, “I ­can’t believe you kept it a secret from me,” to which he replies with the old spy joke, “Honey, I would have told you, but I would have had to kill you.” This blissful domestic scene around the tele­vi­sion, which ends with the husband and wife kissing, grants Robert the status of counterintelligence agent, cinematic leading man, sexy husband, and daring dad all at once. As the tele­vi­sion historian Lynn Spigel details, this “tele­vi­sion in the ­family circle” was a standard pictorial convention in the post-­WWII era. Through a variety of aesthetic conventions, this domestic scene projected the new stability and harmony of the consumer home front that was disrupted following the instability of war and its resultant economic and gender disruptions. The tele­vi­sion reshaped the ­family on a number of levels; tele­vi­sion united the ­family spatially, domesticated dad, and disciplined the ­children.79 That The Com­pany Man ends with this “tele­vi­sion in the f­ amily circle” scene is thus



Spy Kids 141

significant. Rather than depict twenty-­first-­century fractured ­family viewing, which would surely reveal all of Robert’s f­ amily members watching his heroic success on their own devices, at their own time, and in their own space, The Com­pany Man ends anachronistically with a ­family spatially bound to domestic space and discursively bound to authoritative and normative accounts of politics from the nightly network news. Compared with the unified force of Robert’s f­ amily, Glenn’s f­ amily is portrayed as fragmented, with the members depicted as unscrupulous as he is. When Glenn returns to the United States to take the test for a job with the CIA, ­there is no familial reunion at the airport. Glenn rents a car and visits his dad, whom he “­hadn’t seen in quite some time” and b­ ecause “he has a day to kill.” From this, we gather that Glenn’s connection to his ­father is tenuous, and no one is aware that he is back in town—­somewhat unusual for a student. Indeed, his ­father is surprised to see him. ­W hether Glenn saw his ­mother, who we learn is no longer married to his f­ ather, is unclear. The only mention of her is when, a­ fter his f­ather asks how she is d­ oing, Glenn responds with “eh, the same”—­hardly an endearing description. But while his f­ather may be surprised that Glenn is in town, he is even more surprised that his son is trying to get a job with the CIA. Upon hearing the news, he says he “­can’t believe any son of mine would ever work for the man.” When Glenn confidently tells his f­ ather that he i­ sn’t just g­ oing to “work for the man” but he is “­going to be the man,” his ­father gives him a look of bewilderment. From this, we learn that Glenn’s ­father has an ambiguous relationship with the government, which clearly marks him as suspect in an FBI-­ produced film. His questionable character is quickly confirmed by his response to accepting the money Glenn offers him so that he can pay off his mortgage. As Glenn pulls out the wads of cash he smuggled into the country, his ­father is shocked, exclaiming: “Where did you get that? You been robbing Chinese banks?” Lying, Glenn tells his f­ ather that he “opened up an En­glish language school on the sly” and has “been killing it over t­ here” by “slinging En­glish like crack.” Despite the dubiousness of Glenn’s story, his f­ather is giddy that Glenn has “brought home the bacon” and happily accepts the money. When Glenn’s ­brother joins them in the kitchen and asks about the source of the money, his ­father quickly tells him not to look a “gift ­horse in the mouth, son.” This transaction brings joy to both f­ather and son. Over a medium close-up of all three men surrounding the money as they hug and smile, Glenn reveals in a voice-­over, “I felt good that day, as good as I ever had.” Thus, unlike the scene of ­family harmony and heroism depicted in The Com­pany Man, which was powered by loyalty to com­pany, country, and f­ amily, this scene of domestic

142

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

bliss and heroism is fueled by willful ignorance, deception, and morally bankrupt values. Notions of good and bad citizenship in ­these films are also spatially demarcated. In The Com­pany Man, Robert is geo­graph­i­cally bounded by symbols of Americanness: car, office, home. The only time he is presented outside of ­these spaces is when he illicitly meets the Chinese competitors at an outdoor café. In this setting, Robert looks and acts guilty. Moreover, the notion of Robert moving beyond t­hese circumscribed territories is posed as an absurdity. When Robert tells his wife about being recruited to work in China for a few years, she sarcastically replies, “Oh yeah, that’s where w ­ e’re g­ oing to move,” as if working abroad is an incredibly outlandish suggestion. Robert asks her to “think of it as an adventure,” reminding her that “[she] always said [she] wanted to travel,” to which his wife responds with a bewildered “yeah” and a sigh. The viewer ­isn’t privy to what Robert’s wife’s travel desires are, but the implication ­here is that, for Robert’s wife, travel and adventures abroad are the stuff of fantasy. Moreover, while we d­ on’t know w ­ hether China is too far, too “exotic,” or too Eastern for her tastes, it is clear that living in Asia was never part of Robert’s wife’s imaginary vacations. Nor is it r­ eally part of Robert’s fantasy, as he abandons the idea as quickly as it arises. Whereas Robert is bounded by the American ideals of home, ­family, and work, Glenn is untethered from t­ hese American ideals through global travel. Unlike Robert, whose mobility is literally cut short by the breakdown of his car and meta­phor­ically interrupted by his allegiance to com­pany and country, Glenn’s movements for the majority of Game of Pawns are limitless. Consider the wildly contrasting opening scenes of each film. In The Com­pany Man the viewer is introduced to a frustrated and immobilized Robert as his car breaks down, whereas in Game of Pawns, the viewer first meets Glenn as he confidently strides across his Chinese campus, glad-­handing Chinese students as though he’s the mayor of Shanghai. Glenn’s spatial command is echoed elsewhere in the film as he drinks and dances in Chinese nightclubs, saunters through the streets of Shanghai, and comfortably navigates restaurants and high-­end ­hotels. And in stark contrast to Robert and his wife, for whom moving to Asia is a far-­fetched idea, Glenn is depicted as someone who is at ease with global mobility. Following an image of an airplane landing, the viewer watches Glenn, with $40,000 hidden beneath his clothes, effortlessly stride through U.S. Customs. Unlike Robert, who is ill at ease simply talking to the Chinese competitors at a local café, Glenn h­ andles his criminal maneuvers like a pro; at the airport, he charms the customs officer with jokes that make him appear like an all-­American kid rather than an agent of the Chinese gov-



Spy Kids 143

ernment. Over this same image, he informs the viewer that he’d “been back to the US many times before,” thus further marking him as a self-­assured international traveler. It is no surprise, then, that when Glenn is fi­nally caught and detained, it happens on an airplane on his way back to China. The FBI captures Glenn on the very instrument that grants him global mobility and global citizenship.

Contracting Global Citizenship Read through the lenses of global citizenship and mobility, then, Game of Pawns and The Com­pany Man reveal that the FBI is less concerned about greed as a motivation for national betrayal than it is anxious about global citizenship creating the conditions for it. Whereas the American ­father could fight off his greed ­because of the bedrock of home, ­family, and corporate loyalty, the study abroad student’s desire to engage with the ­people, language, and cultures of the world becomes a catalyst for dangerous global liaisons. Despite the fact that far more espionage occurs within corporate Amer­ic­ a and higher education on home turf, t­ hese films spin a yarn about the dangers of the globally minded mobile student. In making this dubious argument, t­ hese FBI spy films advance the long-­ standing belief that students are particularly suited for, as well as vulnerable to, the development of global worldviews and sympathies. As Talya Zemach-­ Bersin details, in the first half of the twentieth ­century, internationalists of all stripes—­from educators and activists advocating world peace to government leaders seeking benevolent tactics to cement Amer­i­ca’s global hegemony—­ recognized that getting ­people to accept world ­matters as their responsibility, emotionally invest in global friendships, and regard themselves as world citizens would require training and cultivation. As young ­people have long been thought to be “Amer­i­ca’s most malleable citizens,” students w ­ ere seen as the best candidates for this kind of emotional and ideological engineering. Education and educational spaces thus became key sites for the transmission of internationalist worldviews and for the production of the right kind of globally engaged “citizen-­subjects.” This social engineering was not neutral. As Zemach-­Bersin reminds us, “Far from being individualized forms of self-­ expression or private psychological states, emotions are social and cultural practices that operate within, and are dependent on, par­tic­u­lar relations of power.”80 While in the nascent phases of globally minded education not all internationalists agreed on its goals, by the 1930s the educational production

144

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

of globally engaged citizens was shoehorned into serving American national interests. Student travelers ­were meant to showcase the benevolence of Amer­i­ ca’s world leadership and the superiority of its values and, in d­ oing so, “function[ed] abroad as a metonym for the nation as a po­liti­cal ­whole.”81 Despite the government’s successful hijacking of internationalist practices and rhe­toric, the educational transmission of global worldviews and the production of global citizens in the ser­vice of the nation have hardly been foolproof. Neither global sympathies nor the practices of international education always align with foreign policy goals. As much as global education training has served as a parastatal agent, it also has the capacity to produce citizen-­ subjects whose cross-­cultural encounters spur ideological allegiance to, rather than mere sympathy for, ­people of the world. This possibility ­hasn’t made global engagement any less necessary to the government, but, alongside increasing forms of globalization, it has certainly made it more unwieldy and difficult to control. Global citizenship education is thus both a potential asset and a potential disease. The strong potential for students to contract the wrong form of global citizenship is clear in the Department of Defense’s study on American spies. ­After reporting that global citizenship is one of the primary motivations for espionage since 1990, the report highlights education’s role as the primary carrier and promoter of this identity: “Importantly, while the exchange of goods, cultures, ­people, and ideas provide the infrastructure that allows global citizenship to happen, it is also identified as something that is cultivated and championed in the current climate through organ­izations, educational curricula, and spokespersons.”82 In other words, globalization might provide the conditions for new forms of global citizenship affiliations, but educational practices and rhe­toric are what shape and encourage this kind of multiple citizenship, as well as actively bring it to life. In par­tic­u­lar, the report intimates that the discourse of ethical obligation ­toward ­others that is central to global citizenship education—­what Barbara Heron calls “the helping imperative” and David Jefferess identifies as a depoliticized “proj­ect of humanitarian benevolence”—­can foster moral and ethical justifications for disloyal be­hav­ior.83 It observes that “helping is a common theme in the explanations of espionage offenders’ actions.” For example, an American spy for Cuba said he ­wasn’t “motivated by ‘Anti-­Americanism,’ ” but rather his goal was “to help the Cuban p­ eople defend their revolution.” Another American spy for Cuba claimed, “I felt morally obligated to help the island defend itself from our efforts to impose our values and po­liti­cal system on it.” And a spy for Israel believed that the United States ­wouldn’t suffer



Spy Kids 145

from his assistance to the ­Middle Eastern country.84 In ­these justifications, then, espionage is turned into a form of help rather than harm. No longer an unethical act, espionage becomes the moral imperative of the global citizen in an interconnected world. Game of Pawns and its accompanying campaign reflect the government’s deep anxiety about this twenty-­first-­century global citizen. Certainly, if the government’s control of global citizenship education was unreliable in its earliest incarnation, it is even less so now as it is common for students across higher education to learn that mobility and travel have long been dependent on and structured by American (and Western) imperialism, racism, sexism, colonialism, and nationalism, as well as by global economic injustice and the practices and policies of war. In this critical context, calls for global engagement and citizenship—­even the most banal and vague marketing sort—­are not guaranteed to solidify American allegiance. Instead, they might do the very opposite, encouraging and legitimizing students’ commitments to ­people outside the United States. The FBI is certainly worried about this possibility; a 2011 white paper produced by its Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Unit, “Higher Education and National Security,” points out that “US college campuses are an especially good place to look for ­people with par­tic­ul­ ar ideological views. Campuses are known for their open discussions and debates. Foreign intelligence ser­vices sometimes find students with par­tic­u­lar po­liti­ cal or ideological beliefs by attending campus rallies, by interacting with par­ tic­u­lar clubs, or reading campus newspapers and blogs.”85 In the reports of both the Department of Defense and the FBI, then, global citizenship education is a threat to national identity and security. Indeed, what the FBI only gestures ­toward, the DOD report confirms by observing that American spies since 1990 are “more highly educated than ­earlier cohorts.”86 Given that this development occurs alongside the rise of global issues as a centerpiece of educational practices and rhe­toric in North Amer­i­ca, the government’s link of con­temporary global citizenship education with danger to the nation-­state and its citizens ­couldn’t be clearer. But is it warranted? As it turns out, for the FBI, the globally engaged student may not be the biggest threat to the nation-­state ­after all. Just one year ­after the release of Game of Pawns, the FBI and Rocket Media released another film about the dangers both awaiting and coming from American youth: The Coming Storm. Also directed by Tom Feliu, The Coming Storm (2015) tells the story of the FBI’s response to an active shooter situation on a fictionalized campus in ­Virginia, where the suspect is a recent gradu­ate. Primarily meant

146

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

for law enforcement officers and security personnel, though l­ater released to the public via YouTube, the film was produced as part of the FBI’s effort to provide better training for mass shootings in Amer­i­ca, a goal that emerged in response to the tragic school shooting of young school ­children in Newtown, Connecticut.87 For the FBI, threats to and from students on school campuses is a major concern—as it should be; of the 250 active shooter incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2017, 52 of them occurred in schools and universities.88 If setting Game of Pawns against The Com­pany Man reveals the FBI’s fears of global citizenship, juxtaposing it to The Coming Storm reveals something more impor­tant and concrete, something that skeptics of global citizenship ignore at their peril. The greatest threat to American youth and the American nation-­state is not contact with global actors but something more fully homegrown.89

6 ◆ STUDY ABROAD AND THE FEM ALE TR AVELER IN THE “A M ANDA KNOXUDR A M AS”

The story is by now well known. In 2007, American college student Amanda Knox was studying abroad at Università per Stranieri in Perugia, Italy, when, ­after a few short months, her British roommate Meredith Kercher, also studying in Perugia, was brutally murdered in their shared apartment. ­After behaving in seemingly inappropriate ways, Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito, her Italian boyfriend of one week, became prime suspects in the case and ­were charged with Kercher’s murder. Knox and Sollecito would spend the next eight years fighting for their innocence in Italy’s ­legal system, all the while subjected to intense global media scrutiny, lurid and ethically dubious reporting, and sensationalized dramatizations of their lives. Knox in par­tic­u­ lar suffered from a type of character assassination familiar to all sexually active young w ­ omen with demeanors that d­ on’t comport to societal expectations: she was cast as a manipulative and duplicitous femme fatale. Journalists turned Knox’s own social media repre­sen­ta­tions against her to create the sex-­crazed and diabolical character “Foxy Knoxy,” who was then shamed for her sexual desires and frankness.1 In 2011, a­ fter they had spent four years in prison, Knox’s and Sollecito’s convictions ­were briefly overturned, and they ­were released from prison. Four years l­ ater, they w ­ ere acquitted, once and for all, of any involvement in Kercher’s murder. Though Knox still remains a figure of media interest, in this post-­acquittal phase, the media narratives are quite dif­fer­ent. Her experience has become a cautionary tale about the dangers

147

148

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

of trial-­by-­media, the public shaming of female sexuality, and the prob­lems of Eu­ro­pean jurisprudence.2 As arguably the most notorious study abroad student, Knox has also become somewhat of a cautionary tale about Americans studying abroad. In the aftermath of Kercher’s murder, both Kercher’s and Knox’s roles as foreign students generated a variety of responses from students, parents, and administrators with vested interests in study abroad, as well as from journalists seeking a story ­angle. For some American students, ­there was fear that Knox’s conviction created a hostile climate for them in their host countries. Shortly ­after the murder, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a twenty-­year-­ old Stanford student studying in Bologna, Italy, called “Ju­nior Fear Abroad,” in which the student outlines the ways in which attention on Knox as a “poster girl for college debauchery” cast a new suspicion on American students, “making the foreign immersion pro­cess so much more difficult.”3 Other students expressed g­ reat empathy for Knox. Writing a­ fter Knox’s final acquittal, Alani Vargas, a ju­nior studying abroad in Florence, Italy, reflects on the similarities between herself and Knox and notes “how close my story could be to hers and hers to mine.”4 In turn, parents publicly expressed concerns about ­whether study abroad was still a good option for their ­children. Jennifer Planeta, who as a young w ­ oman also studied at Università per Stranieri in Perugia, wrote in her local newspaper: “Before this case, I would have encouraged my ­daughter to study abroad. If she w ­ ere in high school or college now, wanting to study abroad, I’d have some serious hesitations.”5 Though mostly avoiding the spotlight, some administrators and faculty of study abroad programs also weighed in, taking to the web to offer advice about how to navigate l­ egal trou­ble while abroad. For example, in “7 ­Things Amanda Knox Taught Us about Studying Abroad,” ­legal studies professor Perry B ­ inder offers a list of ­things students should do before traveling abroad, including the sensible advice of “keep[ing] a translated statement to police in your pocket­book or wallet” and the less realistic advice of “read[ing] non-­fiction books which touch on the ­legal system in your country.”6 Capitalizing on all ­these anx­i­eties ­were journalists with no personal stakes in study abroad but who used it as an opportunity ­either to expose the “tawdry world of the study-­abroad students in Perugia” or to raise fears about the safety of students traveling abroad.7 Moreover, it is clear that Kercher’s and Knox’s identities as foreigners greatly informed ­legal and media discourses surrounding the case. While Kercher’s status as the victim guaranteed journalistic compassion, and her Eu­ro­pean Union citizenship created a closer affinity with Italians, Knox’s American identity fostered more complicated global responses. Sarah Annunziato points



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 149

out that many American journalists in the media and blogosphere believed Italy’s “rampant anti-­Americanism” to be the true cause of Knox’s persecution.8 Similarly, critics of the trial lambasted Italian jurisprudence, outraged by the role its “presumption of guilt” played in Knox’s conviction.9 Conversely, Knox’s two acquittals w ­ ere understood by Italians to be precisely b­ ecause of her national identity; for many, she was regarded as a privileged wealthy American who, with the support of government officials and a public relations team, escaped true justice.10 Undergirding the Italian belief in Knox’s guilt was also, as Ellen Nerenberg suggests, Italy’s larger ongoing attempt to “displace ‘foreign’ or ‘unknown’ vio­lence and aggression onto non-­Italian sources, typically cultural products (tele­vi­sion, film, graphic novels, pornography) ‘Made-­in-­the-­USA.’  ”11 ­Here, it was Knox herself who was the bad cultural import. As Denise Scannell Guida observes, Knox’s failures to uphold the unspoken and elusive code of conduct for Italian life and culture—­the values of bella figura (beautiful figure)—­greatly contributed to the perception of her guilt in her host country. Reading Knox’s persona through this code of conduct, specifically her public expression of grief, sexuality, hygiene, and be­hav­ior, Scannell Guida demonstrates how Knox’s be­hav­ior appeared at ­every step to perform the code’s very opposites—­brutta figura (ugly figure) and mala figura (bad figure).12 Yet even as Knox’s and Kercher’s identities as foreign students ­were ever pre­sent in global media, this emphasis arguably took up only enough space necessary to set the stage for the more salient and salacious details of the story. If anything, study abroad in this international saga simply became an entry or plot point within a larger narrative that was quickly left b­ ehind in order to advance to the juicier iconography of the case: murder and sexual vio­lence, vibrators and feces, pan­ties and bra clasps, kisses and cartwheels, strange affects and false accusations, blood and DNA. That Kercher and Knox ­were foreign students always informed the case, but this categorization d­ idn’t define them in the global press in the way that other more sensational monikers did, such as “innocent victim” for Kercher or “Foxy Knoxy,” “La Luciferina,” and “Faccia D’Angelo” (angel face) for Knox. In stories about Knox and Kercher, study abroad was noted, then took a back seat to sexual vio­lence and murder. This chapter seeks to bring study abroad back to the fore by shining a spotlight on how Knox’s and Kercher’s social identities as international students emerge in the cultural arena. In par­tic­u­lar, this chapter pulls focus away from Kercher as victim and Knox as alleged murderer and t­ oward their repre­sen­ta­ tions as student travelers, specifically female student travelers. To do so, I explore how study abroad and the female traveler emerge across what I call the “Amanda

150

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Knoxudramas”: the middlebrow and earnest Lifetime tele­vi­sion docudrama Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy (2011), the highbrow and contemplative art film The Face of an Angel (Michael Winterbottom, 2014), and the lowbrow and soapy Freeform Network tele­vi­sion series Guilt (2016). While Knox and Kercher have been the subject of all sorts of nonfiction repre­sen­ta­ tion that are worthy of analy­sis—­from tabloid and investigative journalism to serious documentary—­the Knoxudramas are particularly useful for illuminating the ways in which this tragedy’s repre­sen­ta­tion is equally informed by long-­standing cultural concerns about ­women travelers, concerns that easily get grafted onto study abroad. This is not to say that study abroad is the main focus of the Knoxudramas; like most discourses around the case, ­these texts are primarily concerned with the murder and its aftermath. Given that they are repre­sen­ta­tions of a tragic and sexually charged murder during a study abroad, not a foreign student excursion to the Galleria degli Uffizi, this should hardly be surprising. At the same time, ­because, as John Parris Springer and Gary D. Rhodes point out, the docudramatic form uses “the devices of fictional narrative . . . ​to render more vivid the conflict and drama of the ‘real’ subject,” the Knoxudramas also illuminate the ways in which a set of long-­ standing cultural concerns about w ­ omen and travel equally buttress the tragic circumstances that other­wise shape dramatizations of this tragic story.13 They do so, the chapter argues, by stitching together two well-­worn cinematic tropes and arcs—­the first, the conventions of the female travelogue that position female travelers as both vulnerable to and agents of international trou­ble; the second, the “headline” docudrama’s moral instructiveness to parents. Given that “the overall thrust of docudrama is,” according to Lipkin, “neither exposition nor logical argument, but persuasion,” this combination results in a heady cocktail of ideological messages.14 In par­tic­ul­ar, this chapter argues that the Knoxudramas’ assignation of guilt to Knox (or her dramatized surrogates) is not solely the outcome of a young female student being in the wrong place at the wrong time, nor even her own criminal complicity. It is also the result of the seemingly irresponsible and irrational be­hav­ior—­ sometimes spectacularly so—of young ­women studying abroad. It is study abroad itself, the Knoxudramas claim, that sets in motion bad be­hav­iors and their consequences—­drug consumption and sexual abandon, on the one hand, and murder and imprisonment, on the other. As is the case with the “headline” docudrama, this cautionary tale becomes most impor­tant to parents, who are instructed through the Knoxudramas that it is better to keep their ­daughters at home.



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 151

Given that, by all statistical mea­sures, young ­women are the primary participants in study abroad, dramatically outnumbering men for the majority of the twentieth and twenty-­first centuries, the Knoxudramas’ position on ­women studying abroad is obviously both extreme and out of touch.15 But as ­will become clear, unlike the media objects u­ nder discussion in previous chapters, the Knoxudramas ­aren’t conversant, nor are they trying to be, with the discourses of international education, including its own assessments of risk for student travelers. What the Knoxudramas are in conversation with, however, are well-­trafficked narrative tropes and arcs of the female travelogue that position female traveling as fraught with danger, moral decay, and sexual corruption. When grafted onto the parental warnings of the headline docudrama, study abroad becomes a risk not worth taking. While this cautionary tale may not be particularly useful to the study abroad industry, ­women travelers, and their parents, it ­doesn’t make it any less impactful. Thus, alongside exploring how this cautionary tale manifests in the Knoxudramas, this chapter closes with how the broader cultural messages about ­women travelers get turned back onto the field itself, creating for study abroad stakeholders a long-­standing “­woman prob­lem” that consistently needs to be managed. This final chapter of Documenting the American Student Abroad, then, suggests that the useful media other­wise explored in this book does not exist in a vacuum, operating alongside and informed by the external forces that likewise work to shape it.

­Family Traumas and “Parental Fanat­i­c ism” Though the docudramatic form ranges vastly in subject m ­ atter, from critical dramatizations of historical events to celebratory biopics of historical figures, as Steven N. Lipkin, Derek Paget, and Jane Roscoe note, they have “increasingly focused upon ‘ordinary citizens,’ thrust into the news through special (and often traumatic) experiences.”16 Docudramas of this ilk are what Jane Feuer calls “trauma drama,” stories centered on ordinary individuals and families caught up in extraordinary circumstances, and what Rod Carveth dubs “headline docudrama,” docudramatic responses to relatively recent and current news events.17 According to Lipkin, ­these docudramas function as “moral cautionary tales” that enable “viewers to find in their very difference from the story being told some form of instruction through moral clarification.”18 This moral instructiveness, Lipkin argues, stems from the hybrid nature of the

152

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

docudramatic form, which straddles both documentary and melodrama; if documentary offers the docudrama its indexical reference to real events in the world, it is melodrama that demonstrates “that lost moral structures can be recovered and restored.”19 ­Because headline docudramas are most often framed as domestic melodramas, in which families and home life are central to the narratives, Lipkin suggests that their cautionary tales and moral instructiveness often revolve around the responsibilities, travails, and redemption of parents.20 Parents play a major role in the history of headline docudrama, appearing as p­ eople fighting for lost c­ hildren, fighting in the name of justice, fighting inept institutions, or fighting their own demons. In his study of eight seminal Lifetime tele­vi­sion movies of the week, Lipkin notes that seven “appeal directly to parents.”21 In turn, Jane Feuer’s study of the trauma drama formula in the 1980s finds that one of its defining characteristics is “parental fanat­i­cism,” in which parents navigate the institutions meant to help them ­handle their traumatic situation with dogged per­sis­tence.22 According to Staci Stutsman, con­temporary Lifetime headline docudramas regularly feature stories about f­amily members who “strug­gle against a social institution in order to bring a loved one back home.”23 Across thirty years of trauma dramas, then, parents and other ­family members have continued to seek justice and redemption for lost or endangered ­children. True to form, the Knoxudramas place their victims in a context of domestic melodramas in which ­family crises, warnings, lessons, and morals are central to the narrative. Though each has a dif­fer­ent take on the facts of the case, each text places them in the context of stories about young w ­ omen in precarious situations and families or f­amily figures that seek to help them. This is certainly true for Lifetime’s Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, which as a typical cable network trauma drama adheres close to the form. But it is also the case for the tele­vi­sion series Guilt, which is loosely based on the template of the Knox case but set in a dif­fer­ent, fictionalized world—­a common docudramatic form that Lipkin, Paget, and Roscoe call “Factions.”24 Despite a baroque and absurd storyline that links an Irish student’s murder in London not only to her American study abroad roommate but also to Rus­sian criminals, a high-­priced sex club, and the British royalty, Guilt nonetheless sets this story in the context of a f­amily melodrama in which central to the storyline are ­family members, specifically siblings, traveling abroad to fight for their ­sister’s innocence and redemption. ­Family is also the central thrust of Michael Winterbottom’s The Face of an Angel. Despite the narrative’s ostensible focus on the media frenzy surrounding the trial of a Knox-­like figure and a male character’s attempt to make an au­then­tic film about it, the film is ultimately



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 153

concerned with this character’s identity as both a f­ ather to a young ­daughter he hardly sees and a self-­appointed guardian to a young study abroad student he meets while researching his film in Italy.

­W omen Travelers and the “Rhe­toric of Peril” In all three depictions, parents (or guardians) are at the center of what Kristi Siegel identifies as a female travel “rhe­toric of peril.” According to Siegel, rhe­torics of peril are longstanding popu­lar tropes used to warn women—​ specifically white, Western, middle-­and upper-­class ­women—­about the dangers of travel. From Grimm’s nineteenth-­century version of ­Little Red Riding Hood, in which Red Riding Hood is instructed to “not run off the path,” to mid-­twentieth-­century comedies such as Gidget Goes to Rome (Paul Wendkos, 1963) and Take Her, She’s Mine (Henry Koster, 1963), with their obsessive focus on the potential for ­women’s sexual compromise in foreign settings, the female travel rhe­toric of peril works to suggest that “a ­woman traveling alone is vulnerable, disobedient, and quite possibly, immoral.”25 This trope stands in stark contrast to the cultural narratives around travel and men. Sidonie Smith argues that b­ ecause travel has long been sanctioned for white Western men, with mobility and masculinity constitutive of one another, “ ‘the traveler’ has remained endurably ‘masculine’—­one who stands in awe, supplicates, survives, conquers, claims, penetrates, surveys, colonizes, studies, cata­logs, organizes, civilizes, critiques, celebrates, absorbs, goes ‘native.’ ”26 Rather than depicted as vulnerable and illegitimate along his journeys, the male traveler is someone who is entitled to move through the world as he pleases. In contrast, b­ ecause, as Karen R. Lawrence points out, “the female body is traditionally associated with earth, shelter, enclosure,” ­women remain not only meta­phor­ically anchored to but also conflated with the feminized space of the home.27 This conflation, along with the notion that home is, according to Meaghan Morris, “the place from which the voyage begins and to which . . . ​it returns,” bolsters per­sis­tent beliefs about ­women’s stasis.28 What­ever travel choices ­women may make in their ­actual lives, Smith maintains that the merging of ­women and home continues to fix ­women to the site of the home “as a compass point.”29 This is an orientation from which w ­ omen cannot uncomplicatedly veer. As Susan Frohlick, Ana Dragojlovic, and Adriana Piscitelli argue, b­ ecause of the long-­standing equation of ­women with the private sphere, “­women’s

154

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

participation in travel, as a spatial movement away from ‘home’, has for centuries challenged social and cultural norms of femininity and heterosexuality in the ‘west.’ ”30 Spatially and normatively transgressive, the ­woman traveler threatens the stability and circular logic of home and travel that place w ­ omen at the beginning and end of the journey, not along it. Thus, the female travel rhe­toric of peril, in which white Western w ­ omen who move beyond the physical confines of the home are cast as e­ ither vulnerable or immoral, has long served as a rejoinder to ­these challenges. Examples of this rhe­toric across centuries abound. According to Sidonie Smith, in the medieval era, ­women who traveled on religious pilgrimage ­were “commonly condemned as heretics . . . ​and delegitimized as b­ earers of God’s words”—­their sexuality seemingly contaminating Chris­tian­ity, their worldliness disruptive to church patriarchy. In turn, Rebecca Solnit points out that, b­ ecause w ­ omen in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries w ­ ere considered “too frail or pure for the mire of public life,” w ­ omen’s travel was acceptable only if motivated by proper goals.31 Legitimate reasons for travel might include shopping, improved health, or charitable endeavors of ­great sacrifice.32 Without ­these types of respectable cover, w ­ omen’s mobility in public could bear the taint of prostitution, an equation that Solnit observes has become ingrained in the En­glish language: “A w ­ oman who has v­ iolated sexual convention can be said to be strolling, roaming, wandering, straying—­all terms that imply that ­women’s travel is inevitably sexual or that their sexuality is transgressive when it travels.”33 Of course, none of this stops w ­ omen from leaving the home. ­Women’s travel writing since the medieval era reveals the many ways that w ­ omen challenged the social, cultural, and spiritual mores that restricted w ­ omen’s travel. In turn, the feminist movements of the past one hundred years fundamentally altered ­women’s mobility, with w ­ omen rejecting limitations on their participation in the public sphere throughout the first and second waves of feminist agitation. In the twenty-­first ­century, ­women of all races travel in greater numbers than ever before, with tours, books, websites, and clothing companies catering to their global adventures. Yet, despite ­these cultural shifts, concerns and questions around ­women’s travel continue to impose restrictions—­both self-­imposed and externally forced—on ­women’s movements. As Janet Wolff argues, “The ideological gendering of travel (as male) both impedes female travel and renders problematic the self-­definition of (and response to) w ­ omen who do travel.”34 For example, fear of being sexualized in the public realm, including harassment or assault—­daily strug­gles for w ­ omen—­continues to shape w ­ omen’s travel possibilities, creating voluntary restrictions on their mobility.35 Fiona Jordan



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 155

and Cara Aitchison’s study finds that w ­ omen travelers devise strategies to mitigate against harassment and vio­lence, such as joining tour groups, avoiding certain locations at night, and engaging in reading in public to deflect male advances.36 In turn, cultural beliefs of ­women’s vulnerability continue to impose external restrictions on their movements. A 2001 study from the International Personnel Association, an organ­ization that includes members from businesses across the Fortune 500, revealed that companies are less likely to relocate female employees overseas ­because they fear they ­will become victims of crime.37 At the turn of the twenty-­first ­century, then, ­women are still struggling to travel without being sexualized and still regarded as too vulnerable to leave home. As a handmaiden to patriarchy, media has long preyed on the idea that travel is risky business for ­women. As Lynne Kirby points out, in nineteenth-­ century Eu­rope and Amer­i­ca, paintings, films, and newspaper caricatures frequently depicted emergent railway travel as a sexual danger to w ­ omen. Despite the fact that, according to Sidonie Smith, “railway travel provided a relatively safe, clean, comfortable, sheltered, and predictable” form of travel for unaccompanied w ­ omen, media repre­sen­ta­tions of w ­ omen on trains depicted them as vulnerable to theft and sexual assault in the train’s isolated compartments.38 More than a ­century ­later, travel is still characterized as precarious for ­women. In 2000, Cosmopolitan magazine offered its female readership a cautionary tale about travel that ­didn’t mince words. “Destination: Danger—­a Must-­Read Report If You Love to Travel” informs its readers: “More and more young American w ­ omen are setting off to exotic locales and coming back with memories of harassment and sexual assault . . . ​if they come back at all.”39 Five years ­later, the magazine offered more cautionary tales. In “The New Travel Dangers,” readers learned from an expert on ­women’s travel that if they want to enjoy the pleasures of travel they ­will need to have “street smarts” and their guard up at all times. Moreover, if they are looking for love or sex abroad, they are instructed to “romance at [their] own risk,” since “dating in foreign places ­isn’t impossible, but it is, well, complicated and potentially dangerous.”40 To seal the deal, both articles provide cautionary tales of ­women’s travel experiences that ended with tragedy. Importantly, both Cosmopolitan’s and Kristi Siegel’s cautionary tales feature young female students. This suggests an impor­tant link not just between rhe­toric of peril tropes and w ­ omen, but rhe­toric of peril tropes and young ­women, who are shown to be particularly at risk when they travel. Indeed, cautionary tales such as Gidget Goes to Rome and Take Her, She’s Mine offer

156

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

classic templates of the female travel rhe­toric of peril. The tropes of young ­women abroad depicted in ­these films—­for example, ditching chaperones, falling in love with inappropriate men, accidentally or thoughtlessly participating in criminal hijinks, requiring parental rescue—­regularly appear in con­temporary stories about young female travelers. The wildly popu­lar The Lizzie McGuire Movie ( Jim Fall, 2003) features a group of ju­nior high school students, including the titular character Lizzie, who travel on a school trip to Rome. Despite the presence of a stern chaperone, Lizzie gets into all sorts of trou­ble: she sneaks away from the h­ otel, assumes the identity of another ­woman, and falls in love with a duplicitous Italian pop star. Similarly, Mary-­ Kate and Ashley Olsen, child superstars of the 1990s and early 2000s, starred in a series of movies about young girls creating chaos abroad. In Passport to Paris (Alan Metter, 1999), the Olsen twins play boy-­obsessed, thirteen-­year-­ old twins who are sent to Paris to stay with their grand­father for spring break. Once ­there, they sneak away from their chaperone, r­ide around Paris on mopeds with boys, and wind up in police custody a­ fter trespassing on private property. In Holiday in the Sun (Steve Purcell, 2001), the Olsen twins are up to their tricks again; despite being on vacation in the Bahamas with their parents, the girls somehow involve themselves in a crime and must work to clear the name of their wrongfully arrested friend. And in When in Rome (Steve Purcell, 2002), ­after getting fired from their summer internship program in Rome’s fashion industry, they must scheme to get their jobs back all the while dealing with budding romances. As is the case with the midcentury examples, central to ­these films are parents or guardians who attempt to rein in their d­ aughters or wards. For example, in The Lizzie McGuire Movie, ­after seeing their ­daughter with a famous singer on Italian gossip websites, Lizzie’s parents travel to Rome to retrieve their misbehaving ­daughter, who is then grounded for the remainder of the summer. In turn, in Passport to Paris, a grand­father forbids his American grand­ daughters from dating troublemaking French boys. This trope extends beyond comedic borders and is taken to the extreme in the wildly popu­lar action film Taken (Pierre Morel, 2008). In this film, despite her f­ ather’s initial objections and fears, a teenage girl travels with her friend to France to begin a summer tour of Eu­rope. Once t­ here, the teen­agers are kidnapped by a sex-­trafficking operation, and the f­ather, a former CIA operative, must travel to Eu­rope to find his d­ aughter and save her virginity, which comes perilously close to being “taken” from her at the film’s end.



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 157

Girls Gone Wild While an Olsen twins’ movie and the Taken franchise may seem miles apart, the logic of ­these movies is quite similar: let loose on their own, young ­women abroad are vulnerable, make poor decisions, and occasionally wreak havoc, all of which require the intervention of parents and guardians. This theme is clear in the Knoxudramas, in which Amanda and her surrogates are shown to make poor decisions once abroad, leading to l­egal consequences. This is certainly the case with the main character in Lifetime’s Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, in which pre–­study abroad Amanda appears more responsible than the Amanda who lands in Italy. Early on in the docudrama, Amanda (Hayden Panettiere) is shown working at a coffee shop in Seattle, preparing for her semester abroad. As she steams milk, Amanda is lost in thoughts of the Italian language, repeatedly pronouncing the word buonagiornata. Italy is clearly on every­one’s mind at the coffee shop, as her co-­worker and soccer teammate playfully harasses and questions Amanda about her time abroad: she accuses “Foxy Knoxy” of abandoning the soccer team, she asks Amanda if her boyfriend w ­ ill visit her while she’s abroad, and, at Amanda’s offer to bring her Italian choco­lates, her friend requests “Italian men” instead. To all of her co-­worker’s pestering, Amanda adopts a mature and parental attitude. Amanda tells her the team w ­ ill do just fine without her, she explains that since her boyfriend ­will be in China for the year they are “taking a break” so as not to “be tied down,” and she laughs humorously but not salaciously at her friend’s desire for a gift of Italian men. This quick flashback to Amanda in Seattle establishes a number of t­ hings for the viewer. First, it shows an Amanda who is dedicated to learning the Italian language, hence, an Amanda who takes her study abroad seriously. Second, the scene reveals that Amanda has a mature outlook on relationships. Though her “break” from her boyfriend serves as an omen for her f­uture involvement with Sollecito, it also showcases a mature young ­woman (and ­couple) who prioritizes studying abroad over their relationship. This mature young w ­ oman who prioritizes education over romance is clearly contrasted with the sex-­crazed ­woman whom the global media would l­ater define as “Foxy Knoxy.” H ­ ere, the viewer learns that “Foxy Knoxy” is a longtime nickname her soccer teammates use to characterize her athletic—­rather than sexual—­prowess. Fi­nally, this scene establishes Amanda as a young w ­ oman working to save money for her trip. Far from a femme fatale, Amanda on American soil is shown to be hardworking, mature, and intellectually curious.

158

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Lest t­ here be any question that this is how Amanda is at home in the United States, the mise-­en-­scène aggressively reminds the viewer that we are in Amer­ i­ca: of the eight shots inside the coffee shop, six prominently feature American flags. This is a very dif­fer­ent Amanda, then, from the one viewers see on Italian soil, just three weeks ­later. Indeed, in the next scene, Amanda tours her ­sister, who has come for a visit, around Perugia. As they walk around the crowded, student-­filled city, both Amanda and her s­ ister’s vision of the city is less about education than about sex and drugs. Passing by the town piazza, filled with lounging students, Amanda tells her s­ ister that it is “hook up central” and that “in Italy, they say ‘every­thing is illegal and nothing is forbidden’. See ­these guys, ­they’re dealing, mostly hash and weed.” Amanda’s ­sister is titillated by this, exclaiming, “This place is awesome! I want to study h­ ere.” Amanda laughs knowingly, telling her ­sister that she ­will take her to a bar ­after dinner but that she “cannot tell mom anything.” As they continue walking through the town, Amanda flirts with a group of male students. Her ­sister is astonished at Amanda’s unabashed be­hav­ior, teasingly calling her a “slut!” Amanda once again schools her ­sister on her understanding of Italian culture, stating affirmatively: “Come on! It’s Italy dude! Get with the times! ­They’re cute. I’ll share.” Clearly, in just three weeks, Perugia has changed Amanda. While we ­don’t know what her priorities for her study abroad w ­ ere, the viewer knows from the previous scene in the coffee shop in Seattle that Italian men ­were not at the top of her list. That was her co-­worker’s desire, not Amanda’s; she was too busy dreaming of speaking Italian. But h­ ere in Perugia, Amanda becomes a sexually forward tour guide in a seeming den of iniquity. To be sure, nothing presented in this scene is overly scandalous; a discussion of sex and partying by young female students is hardly new terrain, nor are images of students lingering in a piazza. But by contrasting Amanda-­in-­America with Amanda-­ abroad, this scene suggests how foreign soil changes young w ­ omen, who open themselves up to or ­can’t ward off trou­ble in this new, seemingly liberated environment. Jane Feuer argues that this type of contrast is typical in trauma dramas, which regularly feature a way of “establishing an all-­American normality prior to the traumatic event” that is the focus of the narrative.41 It is no surprise, then, that this contrast is also in play, with slight variation, in Freeform network’s tele­vi­sion series Guilt. While viewers ­don’t learn anything about American college student Grace before her study abroad in London, the tele­vi­sion show offers viewers a glimpse of Molly, the young Irish student studying in London whose murder is the mystery of the show, as a child in Ireland. In a flashback, an adolescent Molly talks loftily to her b­ rother



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 159

about her ambition to dance in London with the Royal Ballet.42 Instead of fulfilling this ­wholesome dream, when Molly goes to London as an international student, she becomes a high-­end prostitute, the consort of the royal prince, and a victim of murder. Clearly, then, something happens between t­ hese young w ­ omen’s dreams of study abroad and their a­ ctual experiences of it. Once in-­country, they get caught up in sexual intrigue that is both aty­pi­cal and consequential for them. In ­doing so, ­these narratives play on the notion of travel as contrast between the monotony of everyday life and the extraordinariness of vacation.43 As Fiona Jordan and Cara Aitchison point out, “When taking a holiday, the assumption is that a person is transported physically and emotionally away from her or his home environment and from the regulatory effects of the social norms that act to determine and constrain ‘normal’ be­hav­ior.”44 For ­women, the social norms that constrain “normal” be­hav­ior are most often tied to gender. While the history and experience of ­women’s travel reveal that the ability for travel to eliminate the constraints of gender is ­limited, movies tell the opposite story.45 Despite—or perhaps b­ ecause of—­the possibility of peril abroad, travel as a liberator of gender constraints is also a long-­standing trope in the woman-­abroad film, with the female travelogue narrative often synonymous with stories of w ­ omen’s emancipation from the regulatory rules for gender experienced at home. This is particularly striking in the travelogue romances of the 1950s and 1960s, what Robert  R. Shandley calls “runaway romances” and what A. R. Cooper calls “virgin in Italy” films.46 ­These films are rife with stories of white w ­ omen whose Eu­ro­pean travels foster sexual encounters seemingly impossible at home. In t­ hese stories, ­women are transformed in and by Europe—­jettisoning their morals and convictions to forge romances with all manner of seemingly inappropriate men (e.g., married men, womanizers, male escorts, and younger men).47 While operating in a dif­fer­ent ideological context, con­temporary female travelogues also provide their heroines with liberation from the gender constraints of home life. Kendra Marston observes that travel narratives such as ­Under the Tuscan Sun (Audrey Wells, 2003) and Eat, Pray, Love (Ryan Murphy, 2010) offer white American ­women the ability to transcend the malaise they feel from Amer­i­ca’s neoliberal feminist expectations, which compel them to participate in the “rigorous monitoring of the self,” maintain “heteronormative gender standards,” and achieve professional and personal success.48 Likewise, for Diane Negra, films about American ­women traveling to and finding love in Eu­rope, such as Only You (Norman Jewison, 1994), Four Weddings and a Funeral (Mike Newell, 1994), French Kiss (Lawrence Kasdan, 1995), The

160

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Matchmaker (Mark Joffe, 1997), and Notting Hill (Roger Michell, 1999), allow ­women to fix a variety of social prob­lems related to “the contradictions and dilemmas of ‘normative’ con­temporary American femininity.”49 In the films that Marston and Negra discuss, it is precisely the transcendence of borders that enables ­women to find better romances, a saner work/life balance, healthier relationships to their bodies, and a higher purpose than they could in the United States.

“I’m a Big Girl. I Get to Make ­These Decisions Now!” In the female travelogues analyzed by Marston and Negra, the w ­ omen who experience successful transformations abroad are all professional-­aged ­women: teachers, an actress, a po­liti­cal assistant, writers. Though writing about a dif­ fer­ent set of films, each argues that travel as a site of female discovery and as a remedy for domestic and national gender constraints is particularly strong in stories of professional-­or middle-­aged w ­ omen rather than younger w ­ omen, who, as Marston argues, lack the “configuration of m ­ ental distress . . . ​brought on by de­cades of urban female masquerade” to make the transformation and self-­discovery as rewarding.50 Indeed, cinematic transformation for young ­women, particularly students, may be transformative, but not without a cost. In their travelogue narratives—­from midcentury comedies to con­temporary horror and thriller films such as Hostel: Part II (Eli Roth, 2007), Suspiria (Dario Argento, 1977; Luca Guadagnino, 2018), and Brokedown Palace ( Jonathan Kaplan, 1999)—­young w ­ omen’s transformations abroad (in judgment, sexual character, and be­hav­ior) lead to real or ­imagined danger, ­family trauma, and international incident. In Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, it is Amanda’s failure in judgment, sexual inhibitions, and be­hav­ior abroad that lead to her ­legal entanglement. This is clearly demonstrated when, ­after Kercher’s murder, Amanda rejects her worried ­mother’s plea for her to come back to Seattle, exclaiming, “I’m a big girl. I get to make t­hese decisions now!” The decision to stay in Perugia would be one of many poor decisions Amanda would make, including engaging in crass public displays of affection with Sollecito, ignoring blood stains in the bathroom, lodging false accusations, and performing cartwheels in an Italian police station. Poor decision making is also central to the tragic narratives of the two international students abroad in Guilt. Molly, Irish student abroad cum high-­



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 161

class prostitute, makes the spectacularly bad decision to tell the royal prince that she is keeping his baby, a decision that leads to her murder. But it is her American roommate, the prime suspect in the murder, who makes one remarkably bad decision ­after another, appearing as stunningly imprudent. ­After getting involved in a bad relationship with her sleazy British professor, Grace slashes the tires on his wife’s car, an act that ­will condemn her as a violent ­woman in the eyes of the police. When she becomes the prime suspect of her roommate’s death, a murder she ­didn’t commit, she decides to flee ­England with her French boyfriend, another decision that ­will point ­toward her guilt. ­Later, she w ­ ill put her trust in a mentally ill stranger who attempts to kidnap her. And, against the advice of her ­sister and high-­priced ­lawyer, she refuses to stay put in her ­hotel and away from aggressive paparazzi. The be­hav­iors of ­these young ­women in Amanda Knox and Guilt are precisely what requires f­ amily intervention. In Amanda Knox, Amanda’s m ­ other understands that Amanda is way out of her depth. Before even learning that Amanda is a prime suspect, she flies to Italy to help her ­daughter. Parental intervention is also necessary in Guilt. As soon as Grace’s s­ ister, an assistant district attorney back home in Boston, learns Grace is in police custody in London, she flies to London to retrieve her. In turn, Molly’s b­ rother—­a tough, grief-­stricken Northern Irishman—­comes to ­England to avenge his ­sister’s death. Thus, in both narratives, meta­phorical rescues by parents and parental surrogates play major roles. Once on foreign soil, they realize their child/sister is in way deeper than they ­imagined, and they spend the rest of their time navigating foreign ­legal systems trying to save her or redeem her honor. That ­these are the parents’ and ­family’s stories as much as the ­children’s is evident in the final scenes of both docudramas. At the end of Amanda Knox, ­after the announcement of Amanda’s conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Amanda’s and Meredith’s m ­ others stare at each other, the former filled with sorrow and empathy, the latter filled with icy rage. This moment is followed by Amanda’s ­mother calling out to her as Amanda is whisked past her parents and a mob of media into a police van. The penultimate shot of the film is of Amanda’s m ­ other, ­father, and s­ ister ­running in vain a­ fter the van that ­will take Amanda away from them. In Guilt, the penultimate shot of the finale episode is also a parental figure, ­here Grace’s ­sister. Leaving London for the airport where they ­will fly back to the United States, Grace, now cleared of the murder of her roommate Molly, persuades her ­sister to let her stop at her old apartment. ­There, Grace stumbles upon the real killer and, in yet another of her incredibly reckless moves, attacks her in a violent rage. Her s­ ister finds her in this bloodied state, shouting the last line of the series as she stares in

162

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

disbelief at Grace: “What did you do?” In both cases, then, ­after working so hard to prove the innocence of ­these young ­women, parents and surrogate parents are left with nothing, failing to save their wards from injustice. The Italian court finds Amanda guilty, and Grace jeopardizes her freedom and innocence in one final, impulsive move. Of the many take-­away points ­here, one that surely ­isn’t lost on viewers, is that t­ hese young w ­ omen would have been better off if they had just pursued an education on home turf. Instead, their dreams of study abroad became their families’ worst nightmares.

Lost ­C hildren Parental attempts to save their ­daughters is nowhere more evident than in Michael Winterbottom’s The Face of an Angel, which positions a flawed parental savior figure at the center of its study abroad narrative. Viewers learn just how central parents are in the film’s opening scene, as it focuses on a young female child walking on a beach ­toward the camera, gazing directly at the viewers. Viewers ­will l­ ater learn that this is Beatrice, the ­daughter of the main character, a male filmmaker named Thomas. Thomas has come to Siena from London to make a film about the murder of a British student named Elizabeth Price by her American roommate and her roommate’s Italian lover (fictionalized as Jessica Fuller and Carlo Elias). Though viewers d­ on’t yet know the identity of this mysterious child on the beach, she clearly occupies a special place in the film. Indeed, c­ hildren—­girls and young w ­ omen—­are of major importance in this story, as the viewer quickly learns in the next sequence, in which Thomas meets a journalist, Simone Ford, at a café to talk about her book on the murder, The Face of an Angel: The True Story of a Student Killer.51 Waiting at the café for the journalist, Thomas looks at Simone Ford’s book as the camera focuses on the book’s blurb: “How a student’s dream became a parent’s nightmare.” Thomas’s and Simone’s own stakes in this issue are made evident as soon as they meet, as they exchange pleasantries and query each other about their own lives. Simone is a m ­ other of two young boys, while Thomas is the ­father to a nine-­year-­old girl named Beatrice. Thomas informs Simone that he is estranged from Beatrice’s m ­ other, who lives in California with their child and another man while Thomas resides in London. Though the conversation quickly moves on to the murder case and how Thomas should approach his film about it, Thomas’s role as absent ­father to a distant child becomes a major plot point and structuring device of the film. Beatrice’s presence is everywhere in this film. Yet, to highlight her physical absence, she



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 163

appears only as a mediated image. In addition to appearing as the video recording of her walking along the beach, she also repeatedly appears throughout the film as the screensaver on Thomas’s computer, as an occasionally frozen Skype talking head, and as a picture Thomas tapes to his wall at home. In a story about a murdered child, then, the figure of Beatrice is thus marked as analogous to the young ­woman whose murder is at the center of the story. Beatrice is not dead, but she is lost to her ­father, available only as photographic and digital repre­sen­ta­tion. This specious analogy between his ­daughter and the murdered student continues to develop in the way the film repeatedly juxtaposes Thomas to the ­father of the murdered student, as well as Thomas’s ­daughter Beatrice to the victim. ­Toward the end of the film, a­ fter the verdict acquitting Jessica and Carlo of the murder of Elizabeth, Elizabeth’s f­ather gives a press conference stating the ­family’s continued grief over their lost child. This scene of parental anguish is immediately followed by Thomas Skyping with his ­daughter. In turn, Beatrice herself is echoed in vari­ous shots of Elizabeth, who is cinematographically matched with Beatrice in a number of scenes. At several points, murder victim Elizabeth is shown walking directly ­toward the camera as she gazes at the viewer, similar to Beatrice’s own slow walk along the beach. Significantly, ­these images of Elizabeth walking and gazing into the camera are the product of Thomas’s imagination as he sits down to write the script for his movie about the murder. This analogy between Beatrice and the dead student is made even more evident by Thomas’s disturbing friendship with a young study abroad student in Siena. U ­ nder the auspice of research for his film, he befriends Melanie, a twenty-­one-­year-­old student from London who has been in Siena for six months, and asks her to be his guide to the au­then­tic life of foreign students. Throughout the film, Melanie becomes Thomas’s guide to study abroad. She takes him to a “typical student party,” introduces him to drug connections in Siena, and tours him around the city. She also helps Thomas understand the realities of study abroad. Though she is in Siena to study Italian lit­er­a­ture, culture, and cinema, she mocks the importance of the experience, telling Thomas: “It’s very serious. It’s a w ­ hole four hours e­ very morning. I mean, it’s an excuse, to be honest—an excuse to be ­here and have fun for a w ­ hole year. It’s a pretty good one.” Melanie serves many purposes in this story. She is a stand-in for both study abroad as a concept and all the young w ­ omen Thomas engages with in the film. Like Jessica Fuller (the film’s Amanda Knox), Melanie works at a local bar with college student clientele. The film also fashions her in clothing

164

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

similar to that of the real Amanda Knox; in one scene she is dressed similarly to public images of Knox on the day Kercher’s body was discovered. She is also fully a part of the study abroad party culture, with the number of a drug dealer in her phone. Most importantly (and disturbingly), Melanie becomes a surrogate d­ aughter for Thomas. At the end of the film, ­after the trial has ended, Thomas takes Melanie to the seaside, where, with only one room available at the ­hotel, they share a room. But what might other­wise set up the characters for romance is a device to emphasize just how much Melanie is a surrogate child rather than love interest for Thomas. This is emphasized not only by a scene of them playing cards, in which Melanie acts particularly childlike by making goofy f­aces, but also by images of Thomas watching Melanie sleep that are intercut with images of his ­daughter Beatrice walking on the beach. While Elizabeth/Meredith Kercher, Jessica/Amanda Knox, and Beatrice are lost—to death, prison, and divorce—­Melanie, tucked safely in bed, can be saved.

“­There’s Something Not Right about It”: Study Abroad’s ­W oman Prob­lem Do the cautionary tales of the female travelogue have any bearing on study abroad? Given that young American w ­ omen continue to study abroad in far larger numbers than their male counter­parts, perhaps not in the way they are intended to. Despite the potential danger that awaits young w ­ omen in the female travelogue, its narratives are arguably more likely to foster a desire for travel rather than an aversion to it. Operating alongside the female travelogue’s rhe­toric of peril is a far more enticing rhe­toric of freedom that c­ an’t be ignored. Gidget, Lizzie McGuire, and the Olsen twins characters may put themselves in perilous situations while abroad, but they have a hell of a time ­doing it. Who ­wouldn’t want to follow in their footsteps? Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that students may choose their foreign destinations and itineraries based on their fascination with the narratives and geographic landscapes of movies and tele­vi­sion. As with my own experience with students conflating their study abroad with The Lizzie McGuire Movie, Nancy Barbour describes the significance of popu­lar culture to the young female students with whom she traveled to Greece. ­These students mentioned the importance of films set or shot in Greece, such as Mamma Mia! (Phyllida Lloyd, 2008) and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (Ken Kwapis, 2005), to their decisions to study abroad, and Barbour often observed them



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 165

acting out entire scenes from movies in situ. The students also cited the significance of Elizabeth Gilbert’s 2007 novel Eat, Pray, Love: One ­Woman’s Search for Every­thing across Italy, India and Indonesia, a book widely read on college campuses that students frequently referenced throughout their travels.52 Unwittingly, then, the study abroad industry plays a major role in what is known as film-­induced tourism. Writing about this phenomenon, Rodanthi Tzanelli identifies four interrelated types of cinematic tourism: the tourist within film narratives, the virtual tourist/film spectator, the film tourism industry, and the “tourist in the flesh, who visits places b­ ecause they appeared in films, and whose experience of travel may be influenced by film and the attractions that the tourist industry has to offer.”53 As Barbour’s and my own experiences reveal, study abroad is not immune from this dynamic. Serving in the capacity of de facto film tourism operator, the study abroad industry fulfills the virtual tourist’s fantasies by turning their imaginary journeys into embodied ones. At the same time, just b­ ecause the cautionary tales of female travelogues do not deter young w ­ omen from traveling d­ oesn’t mean that the study abroad field and its stakeholders, including w ­ omen travelers themselves, are immune from their impact. If the female travelogue plays a part in students’ motivations for and experiences of study abroad, so too does the genre’s gendered notions of travel, including its common rhe­toric of peril, play a role in the practices, experiences, and administration of it. While Joan Elias Gore points out that female students have long purposely and successfully traveled abroad both to physically challenging locations and during times of geopo­liti­cal instability, rationales for the large number of young w ­ omen participating in study abroad often rely on gendered beliefs that minimize w ­ omen’s capacities. ­These gendered rationales drive both personal practices and institutional policy. For example, in a study about young ­women’s decisions to study abroad, Jill McKinney found that “motherhood, age, and safety” w ­ ere the three most common ­factors cited. According to the study, young w ­ omen felt like they needed to travel abroad before they have ­children and ­settle into their marriages and ­careers. Furthermore, ­these students reported the importance of ­going on a university “sanctioned” program. McKinney interprets this latter finding as suggesting that parents are more likely to feel comfortable sending their d­ aughters on structured rather than in­de­pen­dent travel.54 In a field that ­can’t quite fully account for its continued preponderance of ­women, this notion of parental protectiveness over ­daughters is one common explanation. Underwriting this rationale is, as discussed e­ arlier, the long-­standing rhe­ toric of peril that surrounds ­women traveling. Jody Jessup-­Anger writes about

166

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

how the beliefs that inform this rhe­toric shape students’ and administrators’ perceptions and practices. In her study of a group of male and female midwestern students who traveled to New Zealand and Australia, the majority of the participants agreed that the study abroad was easier for the young men on the trip. This was based on their perception of w ­ omen as weak (e.g., males ­don’t get “as homesick as the girls” and “guys would be less scared to try new ­things”), troublesome (e.g., “females are picky eaters” and they take longer to get ready), and in need of protection. In the latter case, some men thought they ­were required to protect the w ­ omen students, a notion that was reinforced by an administrator of the program.55 This rhe­toric of peril has long played a role in the administration of study abroad. As the historian Whitney Walton argues, “gendered national ste­reo­ types” steered the “expectations, motivations, and policies of study abroad” across the twentieth ­century.56 Her study of international student exchange across France and Amer­i­ca between 1890 and 1970 reveals how broader cultural messages about sex, gender, and nation ­shaped the administration and experiences of young American w ­ omen studying overseas. In the 1920s and 1930s, the American perception of French men as sexually de­cadent meant that ­women’s travel in France was considered fraught with sexual danger. At the same time, France ­imagined American ­women as sexually loose in comparison with traditional French femininity. Young American ­women studying abroad at this time ­were caught in the crosshairs of ­these competing ste­ reo­types, which in turn governed their be­hav­ior and cross-­cultural encounters. ­These early study abroad participants had to follow program rules for be­hav­ ior, dress, and mobility—­which ­were far stricter than the rules governing their male counter­parts—­that would ensure they w ­ ere following the sexual and social mores of proper young French w ­ omen and out of harm’s way from lascivious French men.57 Though t­ hese restrictions would relax over time, as much from student complaints as from cultural change, throughout the 1950s and 1960s t­hese gendered ste­reo­types continued to govern and inform students’ expectations of and experiences in France.58 While Walton notes that navigating ­these restrictions fostered valuable cross-­cultural learning, they also dramatically ­limited w ­ omen’s ability to travel on their own terms. Though w ­ omen studying abroad ­today are not hamstrung by official program restrictions on their mobility, be­hav­ior, and dress, the characterization of study abroad continues to be driven by concerns about ­women. Joan Elias Gore argues that the perception of study abroad as frivolous and academically weak stems from the historical predominance of ­women in the field. Before the nineteenth ­century, American men turned to the universities of



Study Abroad and the Female Traveler 167

Europe—­considered superior to American ones—to gain professional and leadership experience. When, in the late nineteenth c­ entury, a Eu­ro­pean education was no longer considered necessary for American men, who could now gain “better” professional and leadership training in domestic universities, ­women carried on the tradition of educational travel to Eu­rope, becoming the primary participants of study abroad students, a dominance that has remained since 1923. With men choosing home institutions, study abroad was quickly regarded as a finishing school for w ­ omen, an American version of the ­Grand Tour in which young ladies would gain culture and refinement.59 Gore argues that this belief has long detrimentally impacted the industry. It is one of the reasons why many scholars regard studying abroad as less academically rigorous and unable to meet departmental standards and why media stories highlight study abroad as nothing more than fancy vacations.60 Equally impor­tant, Gore argues that t­ hese dominant beliefs have worked their way into the consensus-­driven policy statements of the leading thinkers and organ­izations in the field. In par­tic­u­lar, she argues that policymakers’ obsessive goals of expanding not only the gender diversity of travelers and mentors but also the curricular options beyond the humanities and social sciences reveal the field’s endemic discomfort with the high proportion of ­women it serves.61 This is a discomfort inelegantly expressed by one of the leading historians of the field when, in 2008, he stated of the gender imbalance: “I ­wouldn’t put it up ­there among the top issues or prob­lems in the field, but I think it’s a puzzlement, to use an old term, and it’s sort of a per­sis­tent consideration, a per­sis­tent sort of annoying feeling that ­there’s something not right about it.”62 Yet, ten years on from this statement, and despite the fact that the field has expanded its curricular offerings such that STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathe­matics) and business majors are now the largest group of student travelers, t­ here are still twice as many w ­ omen as t­ here are men traveling abroad. Their gendered experiences also continue to drive the practices, concerns, and policies of the field. In par­tic­u­lar, for a variety of interrelated reasons, the field of study abroad is beginning to focus on the risks of sexual assault and harassment ­women face abroad. Recent data-­driven scholarship reveals that studying abroad significantly increases ­women’s risk of rape, and that ­women who study abroad often experience lewd comments and uninvited touching during their travels.63 This scholarship coincides with national conversations around and heightened scrutiny of Title IX policies on college campuses. As a field that is embedded within or partnered with American universities, study abroad is not immune from ­these national conversations, including ­whether

168

Doc u menting the A meric a n Student A broa d

Title IX applies extraterritorially for students who are assaulted abroad.64 This issue reflects a broader societal concern “about the risks of tort liability” that, according to Vincent  R. Johnson, has dovetailed with the growth of study abroad.65 Since, as Gregory F. Malveaux points out, “sexual assault litigation is a leading class of suits aimed at study abroad programs,” it is no accident that the industry has begun to take this issue more seriously.66 To mitigate against both student harm and tort liability, scholars and prac­ti­tion­ers have called for a variety of solutions, including every­thing from predeparture self-­ defense training, more involvement of parents, and greater reporting of crimes ­ eedless to say, none of t­hese soluthat take place during study abroad.67 N tions maintain the image of study abroad as safe, rewarding, and fun. While the right solution is unclear—is study abroad without risk pos­si­ble or even desirable?—­what is clear is that, for the field of study abroad, its primary participants continue to be its primary prob­lem. Indelibly tied to the long-­standing rhe­toric of peril, the young female traveler—­naive, reckless, and highly sexual—is si­mul­ta­neously ­imagined to be both a potential victim and a potential agent of sexual and international trou­ble. This long-­standing rhe­toric continues to shape the way young ­women move through the world and the way they are seen along their travels. The Knoxudramas may highlight extreme versions of this, but as this chapter reveals, the young female traveler was causing international concern long before Amanda Knox. W ­ hether in the narratives of cinema or the narratives of study abroad, the young female traveler’s so-­called vulnerability, disobedience, and immorality have long made her trip of a lifetime somebody ­else’s potential nightmare.

ACKNOWL­E DGMENTS

I’m lucky to have colleagues who are lovely and supportive, providing me with the time I needed to write and the laughter I needed to sustain me. Thank you, Maggie Ruopp and Julie Townsend, for fighting the good fight on Johnston’s behalf; I ­couldn’t ask for any better ­people to be in the trenches (or at the spa) with. Kerry Robles, Teresa Area, MG Maloney, and Joselyn Gaytan—­your administrative work makes my work life a thousand times easier, something I definitely needed over the past few years. Thank you, Katie Baber, Leslie Brody, Kathy Feeley, Susan Goldstein, Dorene Isenberg, Sara Schoonmaker, Fred Rabinowitz, and Steve Wuhs for encouraging me along the way; your genuine enthusiasm for the proj­ect, frequent inquiries about my pro­gress, and speedy responses to my queries w ­ ere truly appreciated. And to the Johnston students and alumni who occupy a special place in my heart—my sassy chickens, dog watchers, lady lovers, couch occupiers, goober babies, Renewal sidekicks, intellectuals, creators, and activists—­thank you all for keeping me young in spirit and staying in my life. Books take ­human resources, time, and money. I thank the numerous students, faculty, administrators, and staff who’ve sat on the Johnston Academic Policy Committee over the past two de­cades and endlessly—­and I mean endlessly—­debated the meaning of cross-­cultural study; you are far too numerous to cite ­here, but y­ ou’ve all helped me find my place in this impor­tant conversation. I’m also grateful to my colleagues on the University’s Study Abroad Advisory committee for helping me understand the day-­to-­day operations of the field and to Sara Falkenstien for giving me my first study abroad opportunity at age forty-­six. Likewise impor­tant to my thinking about study abroad is the work of my new friend Talya Zemach-­Bersin. Her brilliant and trenchant critiques of study abroad are impor­tant for every­one in the field to read. Thanks to Dean Kendrick Brown and the Faculty Review Committee at the University of Redlands for providing me with the funds and the time I needed to bring the proj­ect to fruition. The best ­thing I spent this money on was the excellent ser­vices of copyeditor goddess Domenica Newell-­Amato; I have no doubt her stellar work made it easier for Rutgers’s copyeditor, Elizabeth Schueler, and production editor Mary Ribesky, whom I also thank ­here.

169

170

Acknowl­edgments

Further thanks go to Sangita Gopal and Mark Berrettini, who took time out of their busy schedules to write letters of support for a grant. This book is entering the public sphere ­because of Rutgers executive editor Nicole Solano. Thank you, Nicole, not only for your support of the book but also for soliciting excellent readers to comment on the draft. I’m particularly indebted to Stephen Groening of the University of Washington for his thorough and generous feedback. Stephen immediately understood the goal of the book, its significance in film and media studies, and its interdisciplinary potential. His probative questions and insights made my own thinking better, and I am truly grateful. On core “team Hankin” ­were my dear friends and colleagues Tim Seiber and Karen Derris. Champions of my proj­ect from the very beginning, they made me feel smart and loved. Tim, thanks for paying attention to my writing schedule, loving my dogs, letting me love yours, boosting my ego, eating burritos with me, bringing me choco­late, and serving up sass ­every damn day of work. Karen, my brilliant friend, colleague, and s­ ister, thanks for your love and kindness. Somehow in between two brain surgeries, chemotherapy, radiation, multiple MRIs, teaching, writing your own book, and being a mom to the two coolest kids, you always manage to find time to show genuine care and concern for me. Now that I have more time, I’m looking forward to being better at returning the ­favor. My greatest champions ­were my ­father, Marshall Hankin, and my husband, Simon Barker. If my dad offered unconditional praise and encouragement, required for much-­needed morale boosts, Simon offered the kind of loyal criticism that, while not always what I wanted to hear in the moment, was necessary to make my ideas sharper and my writing clearer. His critical feedback was invaluable, as was his love, care, and patience. For the past five years, this book has been a beast in our lives—­horning in on our weeknights, weekends, and vacations. Instead of resenting the beast, Simon happily carved out space for it, accommodated its unpredictable needs, and, not least impor­ tant, helped tame it when its presence became overwhelming. Thank you, Simon, for that, and for so much more. This book is dedicated to you—my favorite ­human being and the very best of men. It’s hard ­under any circumstances to write a book; it’s even harder teaching at a small liberal arts institution with high teaching and advising demands. For five years, I used the bulk of my ­free time to research and write. This was rewarding, but also exhausting. My energy for just about every­thing ­else diminished. In turn, my anxiety about the proj­ect—­having enough time to write, finding the ­mental focus—­maintained at a steady clip. In my role as an



Acknowl­edgments 171

academic adviser, I constantly tell my students to believe in themselves in the face of their insecurities. During my writing, I had to remind myself of this message too. I’m proud of myself for believing in the work and my capacity to bring it to fruition. However audacious and tacky this may be, I unabashedly take this small space to celebrate it.

NOTES

Introduction 1. ​On this controversy, see Carolyn A. Durham, “At the Crossroads of Gender and Cul-

ture: Where Feminism and Sexism Intersect,” Modern Language Journal 79, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 153–165. 2. ​ French in Action is still available through the Annenberg Foundation’s Annenberg Learner, a digital resource for teaching and learning. See French in Action, Annenberg Learner: Teacher Resources/Foreign Language, accessed March 20, 2018, https://­www​ .­learner​.­org​/­series​/­french​-­in​-­action​/­. 3. ​Haidee Wasson and Charles R. Acland, “Introduction: Utility and Cinema,” in Useful Cinema, ed. Charles  R. Acland and Haidee Wasson (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011), 3. 4. ​Wasson and Acland, 4. 5. ​For example: David Orgeron, Marsha Orgeron, and Dan Streible, eds., Learning with the Lights Off: Educational Film in the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Alison Griffiths, Carceral Fantasies: Cinema and Prison in Early Twentieth-­Century Amer­ic­ a (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016); Haidee Wasson and Lee Grieveson, eds., Cinema’s Military Industrial Complex (Oakland: University of California Press, 2018). 6. ​Wasson and Acland, “Introduction: Utility in Cinema,” 3. 7. ​R. Edward Freeman, Andrew C. Wicks, and Bidhan Parmar, “Stakeholder Theory and ‘The Corporate Objective Revisited,’ ” Organ­ization Science 15, no. 2 (May–­June 2004): 365. 8. ​See Sinziana Dorobantu, Witold J. Henisz, and Lite Nartey, “Not All Sparks Light a Fire: Stakeholder and Shareholder Reactions to Critical Events in Contested Markets,” Administrative Science Quarterly 62, no. 3 (2017): 564. 9. ​For example, the study abroad experience is barely represented, if at all, in the suggested movie lists of two vendors—­Education First and New York Film Acad­emy. This is also the case for the films featured in NAFSA: The Association of International Educator’s “international film festival” at its 2017 conference. See Isabelle, “10 Movies That ­Will Inspire You to Travel the World,” Go (blog), EF: Education First, accessed March 12, 2017, https://­ www​.­ef​.e­ du​/­blog​/­language​/­10​-­movies​-­that​-­will​-­inspire​-­you​-­to​-­travel​/­; Lizzie Cohan, “The Best Foreign Films to Watch before You Study Abroad,” New York Film Acad­emy Student Resources, March  10, 2017, https://­www​.­nyfa​.­edu​/­student​-­resources​/­the​-­best​ -­foreign​-fi­ lms​-­to​-­watch​-­before​-y­ ou​-­study​-­abroad​/­; “NAFSA International Film Festival,” NAFSA: National Association of Foreign Student Advisors, accessed March  12, 2017, http://­w ww​.­nafsa​.­org​/­Annual​_­Conference​/­Special​_­Events​/­NAFSA​_­International​ _­Film​_F ­ estival​/.­ 10. ​For example, Stella Bruzzi, New Documentary, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2006), 199. 11. ​Jeffrey Ruoff, “Introduction: The Filmic Fourth Dimension; Cinema as Audiovisual Vehicle,” in Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, ed. Jeffrey Ruoff (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006), 1. 173

174 12. ​W hile

Notes to Pages 6–8

­there is not universal agreement among historians on precisely when mass tourism developed, many date its emergence as somewhere between the development of the train in the mid-­nineteenth ­century and the rise of automobiles in the early twentieth ­century. See Jennifer Lynn Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams: Travelogues and Early Nonfiction Film (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013), 11. 13. ​See Tom Gunning, “ ‘The Whole World within Reach’: Travel Images without Borders,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 25; Charles Musser, “The Travel Genre in 1903–1904: Moving ­towards Fictional Narrative,” Iris 2, no. 1 (1984): 47; Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams; Ruoff, “Introduction,” 2. 14. ​Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, 2–3. 15. ​Gunning, “Whole World,” 30. 16. ​Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, 152. Also see Lynne Kirby, Parallel Tracks: The Railroad and ­Silent Cinema (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), 1–74. 17. ​On films sponsored by the automobile industry, see Peter J. Bloom, “Trans-­Saharan Automotive Cinema: Citroen-­, Renault-­, and Peugeot-­Sponsored Documentary Interwar Crossing Films,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 139–156; and Amy J. Staples, “Safari Adventure: Forgotten Cinematic Journeys in Africa,” Film History: An International Journal 18, no. 4 (2006): 392–411. 18. ​Stephen Groening, Cinema beyond Territory: Inflight Entertainment and Atmospheres of Globalisation (London: BFI/Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 50. Also see Nico de Klerk, “Dream-­Work: Pan Am’s New Horizons in Holland,” in Films That Sell: Moving Pictures and Advertising, ed. Bo Florin, Nico de Klerk, and Patrick Vonderau (London: BFI/Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 131–144. 19. ​For example, Land Rover’s media partnerships with CNN’s Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown and Travel Channel’s interactive digital series Uncharted Discoveries. See “Land Rover Launches New Marketing Campaign to Celebrate the Arrival of the New Discovery in North Amer­i­ca,” Land Rover, May 1, 2017, http://­media​.­landrover​.c­ om​/­en​-­us​/­news​ /­2 017​ /­0 5​ /­l and​ -­r over​ -­l aunches​ -­n ew​ -­m arketing​ -­c ampaign​ -­c elebrate​ -­a rrival​ -­n ew​ -­discovery​-­north; Larissa Faw, “Land Rover Makes ‘Uncharted Discoveries,’ ” Media Post, June  9, 2017, https://­www​.­mediapost​.­com​/­publications​/­article​/­302621​/­land​-­rover​-­makes​ -­uncharted​-­discoveries​.­html. On the relationship of film to the con­temporary airline industry, see Groening, Cinema beyond Territory, 53. 20. ​Wolfgang Schivelbusch, The Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Time and Space in the 19th ­Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 33–34. 21. ​Schivelbusch, 37. 22. ​Schivelbusch, 11. 23. ​Schivelbusch, 63. 24. ​Schivelbusch, 53–54. 25. ​Schivelbusch, 64. 26. ​Kirby, Parallel Tracks, 42–57. 27. ​Kirby, 2. 28. ​Karen Beckman, Crash: Cinema and the Politics of Speed and Stasis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 29. 29. ​Jon Gartenberg, “Camera Movement in Edison and Biograph Films, 1900–1906,” Cinema Journal 19, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 14.



Notes to Pages 8–12

175

30. ​Beckman, Crash: Cinema and the Politics of Speed and Stasis, 47. 31. ​Ruoff, “Introduction,” 2. 32. ​Alison Griffiths, “Time Traveling IMAX Style: Tales from the G ­ iant Screen,” in Ruoff,

Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 239. 33. ​Griffiths, 241. 34. ​Alison Griffiths, Shivers Down Your Spine: Cinema, Museums, and the Immersive View (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 95. 35. ​Griffiths, 4. 36. ​Griffiths, 83. 37. ​Lauren Rabinovitz, “From Hale’s Tours to Star Tours: Virtual Voyages, Travel Ride Films, and the Delirium of the Hyper-­Real,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 45. 38. ​Sara Ross, “Invitation to the Voyage: The Flight Sequence in Con­temporary 3D Cinema,” Film History 24 (2012): 212. 39. ​Griffiths, “Time Traveling IMAX Style,” 239–252. 40. ​Groening, Cinema beyond Territory, 6. 41. ​See Alison Byerly, Are We Th ­ ere Yet? Virtual Travel and Victorian Realism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013), 59–66. 42. ​Groening, Cinema beyond Territory, 47–50. 43. ​Matt Stevens, “Google Earth’s New Voyager Tool Aims to Feed Our Wanderlust,” New York Times, April 21, 2017, https://­www​.n­ ytimes​.­com​/­2017​/­04​/­21​/­technology​/­google​ -­earth​-­voyager​.­html. 44. ​Kirby, Parallel Tracks, 8. 45. ​Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, 217. 46. ​Gunning, “Whole World,” 29. 47. ​Gunning, 27. 48. ​Nancy Martha West, Kodak and the Lens of Nostalgia (Charlottesville: University Press of ­Virginia, 2000), 36–73. 49. ​Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, 8–10. 50. ​Peterson, 8–10, chapter 3. 51. ​Peterson, 144–145. 52. ​Ellen Strain, Public Places, Private Journeys: Ethnography, Entertainment, and the Tourist Gaze (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003), 39. See John Urry, The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Con­temporary Society (London: Sage, 1990). 53. ​Strain, Public Places: Private Journeys, 41. 54. ​Strain, 45. 55. ​Strain, 18. 56. ​Strain, 27. 57. ​Gunning, “Whole World,” 30. 58. ​Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, chapters 4 and 5. 59. ​See Staples, “Safari Adventure,” 392–411; and Dana Benelli, “Hollywood and the Attractions of the Travelogue,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 177–194. 60. ​Benelli, “Hollywood and the Attractions of the Travelogue,” 182; and Amy J. Staples, “The Last of the ­Great (Foot-­Slogging) Explorers: Lewis Cotlow and the Ethnographic Imaginary in Popu­lar Travel Film,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 195–237.

176

Notes to Pages 12–16

61. ​John Belton, Widescreen Cinema, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1992), 89; and Kevin  W. Martin, “ ‘­Behind Cinerama’s Aluminum Curtain’: Cold War Spectacle and Propaganda at the First Damascus International Exposition,” Journal of Cold War Studies 17, no. 4 (Fall 2005): 71. 62. ​Strain, Public Places, Private Journeys, 1. 63. ​Griffiths, Shivers Down Your Spine, 95, 98. 64. ​Groening, Cinema beyond Territory, 44–45. 65. ​Strain, Public Places, Private Journeys, 1. 66. ​Strain, 2. 67. ​Robert R. Shandley, Runaway Romances: Hollywood’s Postwar Tour of Eu­rope (Philadelphia: ­Temple University Press, 2009), xiii. 68. ​See Casey Ryan Kelly, Food Tele­vi­sion and Otherness in the Age of Globalization (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017), 3, 114. 69. ​Strain, Public Places, Private Journeys, 36. 70. ​Ross Lewin, “Introduction: The Quest for Global Citizenship in Study Abroad,” in The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, ed. Ross Lewin (New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009), xiii. 71. ​“Infographics: Open Doors 2019: Infographics—­International + U.S. Study Abroad,” IIE: The Power of International Education, November  2019, https://­www​.­iie​.­org​/­en​ /­Research​-a­ nd​-I­ nsights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Fact​-­Sheets​-­and​-­Infographics. 72. ​Paul Fussell, ed., The Norton Book of Travel (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 13–14. 73. ​Strain, Public Places, Private Journeys, 4. 74. ​Sarika Chandra, Dislocalism: The Crisis of Globalization and the Remobilizing of Americanism (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2011), 170–171. 75. ​Strain, Public Places, Private Journeys, 4. 76. ​For example, see Dianna Murphy, Narek Sahakyan, Doua Yong-­Yi, and Sally Sieloff Magnan, “The Impact of Study Abroad on the Global Engagement of University Gradu­ ates,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 24 (Fall 2014): 2; Tracy Rundstrom Williams, “Using a PRISM for Reflecting: Providing Tools for Study Abroad Students to Increase Their Intercultural Competence,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29, no. 2 (Fall 2017): 18–34; Hannah Strange and Heather J. Gibson, “An Investigation of Experiential and Transformative Learning in Study Abroad Programs,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 85–100. 77. ​Nicole Laliberté and Charlene Waddell, “Feeling Our Way: Emotions and the Politics of Global Citizenship in Study Abroad Programming,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29, no. 2 (Fall 2017): 80. 78. ​Colin Wright, “Postcolonial Cosmopolitanisms: T ­ owards a Global Citizenship Education Based on ‘Divisive Universalism,’ ” in Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, ed. Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti and Lynn Mario T. M. de Souza (New York: Routledge, 2012), 49; and David Jefferess, “Unsettling Cosmopolitanism: Global Citizenship and the Cultural Politics of Benevolence,” in Andreotti and de Souza, Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, 30. 79. ​Nigel Dower, An Introduction to Global Citizenship (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003), vii.

80. ​Talya

Notes to Pages 16–24

177

Zemach-­Bersin, “Entitled to the World: The Rhe­toric of U.S. Global Citizenship Education and Study Abroad,” in Andreotti and de Souza, Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, 100–101. 81. ​Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart, “International Understanding and Global Interdependence: T ­ owards a Critique of International Education,” in Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical Approaches to International Education in the Age of Cyberculture, ed. Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2002), 6. 82. ​Sarah  C. Bishop, “The Rhe­toric of Study Abroad: Perpetuating Expectations and Results through Technological Enframing,” Journal of Studies in International Education 17, no. 4 (2013): 410. 83. ​Talya Zemach-­Bersin, “Selling the World: Study Abroad Marketing and the Privatization of Global Citizenship,” in Lewin, Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad, 303. 84. ​Bishop, “Rhe­toric of Study Abroad,” 411. 85. ​“Student Profile,” IIE: The Power of International Education, accessed July 1, 2019, https://­w ww​.­iie​.­org​/­R esearch​-­and​-­Insights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Data​/­US​-­Study​-­Abroad​ /­Student​-­Profile. 86. ​On the history and predominance of ­women in study abroad, see Joan Elias Gore, Dominant Beliefs and Alternative Voices: Discourse, Belief, and Gender in American Study Abroad, Studies in Higher Education (New York: Routledge, 2005); and Whitney Walton, Internationalism, National Identities, and Study Abroad: France and the United States, 1890–1970 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009). For current demographic statistics, see IIE: The Power of International Education, U.S. Study Abroad, Open Doors Report, 2018, https://­www​ .­iie​.o­ rg​/­en​/­Research​-­and​-­Insights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Data​/­US​-­Study​-­Abroad. 87. ​A close second to Knox’s study abroad notoriety is University of V ­ irginia student Otto Warmbier, who was held hostage in North K ­ orea from January 2016 to June 2017 and died shortly ­after his release. Though Warmbier was not officially a study abroad student, traveling instead with a dubious travel com­pany called Young Pioneer Tours, Warmbier’s identity as an honor student was prioritized in most media accounts. 88. ​Gillian Rose, Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Objects, 3rd ed. (London: Sage, 2015), 198. 89. ​Kirby, Parallel Tracks, 11. 90. ​Rose, Visual Methodologies, 199. 91. ​Grünzweig and Rinehart, “International Understanding,” 6. 92. ​Julie M. Ficarra, “Curating Cartographies of Knowledge: Reading Institutional Study Abroad Portfolio as Text,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29, no. 1 (April 2017): 1. 93. ​Exceptions include Walton’s Internationalism, National Identities, and Study Abroad; and Talya Zemach-­Bersin’s “Imperial Pedagogies: Education for American Globalism, 1898–1950” (PhD diss., Yale University, 2015). 94. ​Zemach-­Bersin, “Entitled to the World,” 89. 95. ​“International Student Data” IIE: The Power of International Education, November 2019,  https://­www​.­iie​.­org​/­Research​-­and​-­Insights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Fact​-­Sheets​-­and​-­Info​ graphics​/­Infographics​/­International​-­Student​-­Data. 96. ​For example, see Con­ve­nient Education (directed and written by David Elliot-­Jones, Louis Dai, and Lachlan McLeod [Choco­late Liberation FrontMelbourne, 2012]), a

178

Notes to Pages 24–27

documentary about Indian students in Australia; and the tele­vi­sion show On the Road in Amer­i­ca, directed by Jerome Gary, featuring Mohamed Abou Ghazel, Ali Amir, and Sanad Al Kubaissi (Layalina Productions, Washington, DC, 2007), a real­ity travelogue series featuring young Arabs traveling together throughout the United States. 97. ​For example, see Better Off Dead, directed by Savage Steve Holland, featuring John Cusack (Burbank, CA: Warner ­Brothers, 1985); Caddyshack, directed by Harold Ramis, featuring Chevy Chase and Rodney Dangerfield (Burbank, CA: Warner ­Brothers, 1980); Not Another Teen Movie, directed by Joel Gallen (Culver City, CA: Columbia Pictures, 2001); ­Can’t Hardly Wait, directed and written by Harry Elfont and Deborah Kaplan, featuring Jennifer Love Hewitt (Culver City, CA: Columbia Pictures, 1998); D.E.B.S., directed by Angela Robinson (Culver City, CA: Samuel Goldwyn Films, 2004); Slap Her, She’s French, directed by Melanie Mayron, written by Lamar Damon and Robert Lee King (Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 2002); American Pie, directed by Paul Weitz and Chris Weitz, written by Adam Herz (Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 1999); Sixteen Candles, directed and written by John Hughes, featuring Molly Ringwald (Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 1984); Napoleon Dynamite, directed by Jared Hess, featuring Jon Heder (Hollywood, CA: MTV Films, 2004); and That ’70s Show, created by Bonnie Turner, Mark Brazill, and Terry Turner (Los Angeles, CA: FOX, 1998–2006). 98. ​Some work in this area has already been done. See Leslie Bow, “Transracial/Transgender: Analogies of Difference in Mai’s Amer­i­ca,” Signs: Journal of W ­ omen in Culture and Society 35, no. 1 (Autumn 2009): 75–103; and Ben McCann, L’Auberge Espagnole: Eu­ro­pean Youth on Film (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018). 99. ​Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, “Introduction: Does the World R ­ eally Need One More Field of Study?,” in Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method, ed. Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren (Chichester, UK: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2009), 11.

Chapter 1  The Personal Is Professional 1. ​See “CIEE Annual Conference: Austin November 8–11, 2017: Born Digital: Embracing

Technology to Enhance International Education,” Council on International Educational Exchange, accessed April 16, 2018, http://­globaleducationconference​.­ciee​.­org​/­downloads​ /­austin​/A ­ ustin​-­Program​.­pdf. 2. ​IES Abroad, “Study Abroad Film Festival,” accessed April  23, 2018, https://­www​ .­iesabroad​.­org​/­film​-­festival; ISA, “ISA Video Contest,” accessed May 24, 2020, https://­ www​.­studiesabroad​.­com​/­alumni​/­video​-­contest; CEA, “Study Abroad Video Contest,” February 1, 2008, http://­www​.­ceastudyabroadblog​.­com​/­​?­p​=­1247; NAFSA and Connecting Our World, “Student Diplomat Video Contest,” accessed April  23, 2018 (no longer available); ACIS, “Video Contest,” accessed April 23, 2018, https://­www​.­acis​.­com​/­students​ /­contest​-­video; AIFS Study Abroad, “Capture the Culture Video Contest,” June 12, 2017, https://­blog​.a­ ifsabroad​.­com​/­2017​/­06​/­12​/­aifs​-­capture​-­culture​-­video​-­contest​-­2017​/­; IIE: The Power of International Education, “Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge,” accessed June  3, 2020, https://­www​.­iie​.­org​/­W hy​-­IIE​/­Announcements​/­2015​/­05​ /­2015​-0­ 5​-­05​-N ­ ew​-­York​-T ­ imes​-­in​-E ­ ducation​-V ­ ideo​-C ­ ontest. 3. ​Karen Pashby, “Questions for Global Citizenship Education in the Context of the ‘New Imperialism’: For Whom, by Whom?,” in Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizen-



Notes to Pages 28–31

179

ship Education, ed. Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti and Lynn Mario T. M. de Souza (New York: Routledge, 2012), 9. 4. ​Michael Strangelove, Watching YouTube: Extraordinary Videos by Ordinary ­ People (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 14. 5. ​Tiziana Terranova, “­Free ­Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy,” Social Text 18 no. 2 (2000): 49. 6. ​Laurie Ouellette, “Camcorder Dos and ­Don’ts: Popu­lar Discourses on Amateur Video and Participatory Tele­vi­sion,” Velvet Light Trap 36 (Fall 1995): 33–44. 7. ​Terranova, “­Free ­Labor,” 37. 8. ​Mark Deuze, “Convergence Culture and Media Work,” in Media Industries: History, Theory, Method, ed. Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren (Chichester, UK: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2009), 149. 9. ​Deuze, 149; Joshua Green and Henry Jenkins, “The Moral Economy of Web 2.0: Audience, Research, and Convergence Culture,” in Holt and Perren, Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method, 215. 10. ​“Foot Locker, Inc. and ASICS Amer­i­ca Kick Off 2016 ‘Real Lives. Real Runners’ Campaign,” Cision PR Newswire, July  21, 2016, https://­www​.­prnewswire​.­com​/­news​ -­releases​/­foot​-­locker​-­and​-­asics​-­america​-­kick​-­off​-­2016​-­real​-­lives​-­real​-­runners​-­campaign​ -­300302055​.­html; “Porsche Selects Ten Aspiring Filmmakers to Participate in an ‘Everyday’ Film Contest,” Cision PR Newswire, September 12, 2011, https://­www​.­prnewswire​ .­com​/­news​-­releases​/­porsche​ -­selects​-­ten​-­aspiring​-­f ilmmakers​-­to​-­participate​-­in​-­an​ -­everyday​-­film​-c­ ontest​-­129666943​.­html; “AT&T Film Awards,” AT&T SHAPE, accessed April 16, 2018, https://­shape​.­att​.­com​/­film​-­awards. 11. ​See Ana Luisa Sanchez-­Laws, “Digital Storytelling as an Emerging Documentary Form,” Seminar​.­net -­International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning 6, no. 3 (2010): 359–366, https://­journals​.­hioa​.­no​/­index​.­php​/­seminar​/­article​/­view​/­2426. 12. ​James F. En­glish, The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 10. 13. ​En­glish, 50–51. 14. ​En­glish, 51. 15. ​En­glish, 47. 16. ​Deuze, “Convergence Culture,” 149. 17. ​For example: Michael Lenoch, “Pissed Off at Germany: The Bad While Studying Abroad,” July 28, 2014, YouTube video, 8:15, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­UAcVY​ rL4Fsw; Katnipkitkat, “Horrible Japa­nese Homestay,” January 10, 2016, YouTube video, 18:13, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=​_ ­ ­Iz4fxtWGUE&t​=­3s. 18. ​IES Abroad, “How It Works,” accessed April  16, 2018, https://­www​.­iesabroad​.­org​ /­study​-­abroad​/­film​-­festival​/­how​-­it​-­works (emphasis added). 19. ​IES Abroad, “Buenos Aires | Film Festival 2015 Winner | It’s Okay,” September 1, 2015, YouTube video, 8:33, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=h­ HrAfpb9nEg; IES Abroad, “Santiago | 2017 Film Fest Winner | “Solitude: A Companion Abroad,” September 21, 2017, YouTube Video, 6:44, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­chQuIawO​_­yE; Vienna | Film Festival 2016 ­Grand Prize Winner | Even in Eu­rope . . .” August 24, 2016. YouTube video, 4:02. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­0iNv2eh4YZ8&t​=­47s. 20. ​ISA, “ISA Video Contest,” accessed April 20, 2018, https://­www​.­studiesabroad​.­com​ /­alumni​/v­ ideo​-­contest.

180 21. ​“ISA

Notes to Pages 31–35

Video Contest Winners,” ISA, series of YouTube videos, last modified January  31, 2018, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­playlist​?­list​=­PLy9GCN2SvxxiW8plsnG0fnq5​ -­NmFKA​_­iM. 22. ​“2019 Study Abroad Film Festival,” IES Abroad, series of YouTube videos, last modified November  8, 2019, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­playlist​?­list​=­PLf4F2f​-­uc6sPWKI​ 4r060​VYPsh​-­SxWMRkx; “ISA Video Contest Winners,” ISA, series of YouTube videos, last modified September 4, 2019, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­playlist​?­list​=P ­ Lf4F2f​-u­ c6s​ PWKI4r060VYPsh​-­SxWMRkx. 23. ​Patricia R. Zimmermann, Reel Families: A Social History of Amateur Film (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 74. 24. ​Devin Orgeron, “Mobile Home Movies: Travel and le Politique des Amateurs,” Moving Image 6, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 77. 25. ​Jeffrey Geiger, American Documentary Film: Projecting the Nation (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press, 2011), 63–64. 26. ​See Michael Renov, The Subject of Documentary (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004), xvii; and Jon Dovey, Freakshow: First Person Media and Faculty Tele­vi­ sion (London: Pluto Press, 2000). 27. ​Renov, Subject of Documentary, xvii; Peter Hughes, “Blogging Identity​.­com,” in The Cinema of Me: The Self and Subjectivity in First Person Documentary, ed. Alisa Lebow (London: Wallflower Press, 2012), 235. 28. ​Hughes, “Blogging Identity​.c­ om,” 239–240. 29. ​Laura Rascaroli, The Personal Camera: Subjective Cinema and the Essay Film (London: Wallflower Press, 2009), 4–5. 30. ​Rascaroli, 4–5. 31. ​Alisa Lebow, “The Camera as Peripatetic Migration Machine,” in Lebow, Cinema of Me, 228. 32. ​Lebow, “The Camera,” 229. 33. ​Alisa Lebow, introduction to Cinema of Me, 3. 34. ​Renov, Subject of Documentary, xxii. 35. ​NAFSA Association of International Educators (blog), January  4, 2010 (website discontinued), https://­nafsa​.­wordpress​.­com​/­2010​/­01​/­04​/­voting​-­begins​-­for​-­the​-­2009​ -­student​-­diplomat​-­video​-­contest​-­choose​-­your​-­favorite​-­today​/­. 36. ​Ashley Feith, “Student Diplomat 2012 Video Contest,” November 5, 2012, YouTube video, 2:59, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=R ­ R18kQ7tLR0. 37. ​Connecting Our World, “What We Stand For,” accessed April 23, 2018, https://­www​ .­connectingourworld​.­org​/­what​-­we​-s­ tand​-­for. 38. ​IES Abroad, “London | Film Festival 2016 Finalist | FOMO,” August  24, 2016, ­YouTube video, 3:59, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=8­ d2r5IlAw9M. 39. ​See Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart, “International Understanding and Global Interdependence: ­Towards a Critique of International Education,” in Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical Approaches to International Education in the Age of Cyberculture, ed. Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2002), 15; Barbara K. Hofer, Stacey Woody Thebodo, Kristen Meredith, Zoe Kaslow, and Alexandra Saunders, “The Long Arm of the Digital Tether: Communication with Home during Study Abroad,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29 (November 2016): 24–41.



Notes to Pages 35–39

181

40. ​IES Abroad, “Beijing | Film Festival 2014 Winner | East of ­Here,” September 1, 2014,

YouTube video, 11:33, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­jStPM​_­Tkw5Y. 41. ​Cindy Hing-­Yuk Wong, Film Festivals: Culture, ­People, and Power on the Global Screen (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2011), 67. 42. ​Wong, 74–91. 43. ​Wong, 66. 44. ​Ryan Shand, “Memories of Hard Won Victories: Amateur Moviemaking Contests and Serious Leisure,” Leisure Studies 33, no. 5 (2014): 475 (emphasis added). 45. ​IIE: The Power of International Education, “Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge,” accessed May  24, 2020, https://­www​.­iie​.­org​/­W hy​-­IIE​/­Announcements​/­2015​ /­05​/2­ 015​-­05​-0­ 5​-­New​-­York​-­Times​-­in​-­Education​-­Video​-­Contest. 46. ​IIEglobal, “Winner of the Generation Study Abroad Video Contest | Alejandro Alba,” October 1, 2015, YouTube video, 3:03, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=V ­ gT3a2tCszA; IIEglobal, “Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge Highlights | Runner Up Elizabeth Stallard,” September 24, 2015, YouTube video, 2:29, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?­v​=6­ TWClfGB6TU; IIEglobal, “Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge Highlights | Runner Up Justice Whitaker,” September  22, 2015, YouTube video, 3:00, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­Tf TEPpx0Cmg. 47. ​Jennifer Lynn Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams: Travelogues and Early Nonfiction Film (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013), xvi, 4. 48. ​Peterson, 18. 49. ​Peterson, 18, 142, 149. 50. ​Peterson, 137–174. On the phantom ­ride, see Lauren Rabinovitz, “From Hale’s Tours to Star Tours: Virtual Voyages, Travel Ride Films, and the Delirium of the Hyper-­Real,” in Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, ed. Jeffrey Ruoff (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006), 45; and Alison Griffiths, “Time Traveling IMAX Style: Tales from the G ­ iant Screen,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 239. 51. ​Jeffrey Ruoff, “Introduction: The Filmic Fourth Dimension: Cinema as Audiovisual Vehicle,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 9. 52. ​Maija Howe, “The Photographic Hangover: Reconsidering the Aesthetics of the Postwar 8mm Home Movie,” in Amateur Filmmaking: The Home Movie, the Archive, the Web, ed. Laura Rascaroli and Gwenda Young, with Barry Monahan (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), 46–47. 53. ​Mark Neumann, “Amateur Film, Automobility and the Cinematic Aesthetics of Leisure,” in Rascaroli and Young, Amateur Filmmaking, 51–64. 54. ​Zimmermann, Reel Families, 135. 55. ​Dana Benelli, “Hollywood and the Attractions of the Travelogue,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 177–194. 56. ​Amy J. Staples, “Safari Adventure: Forgotten Cinematic Journeys in Africa,” Film History: An International Journal 18, no. 4 (2006): 394. 57. ​See Nico de Klerk, “Dream-­Work: Pan Am’s New Horizons in Holland,” in Films That Sell: Moving Pictures and Advertising, ed. Bo Florin, Nico de Klerk, and Patrick Vonderau (London: BFI/Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 131–144; Harvey O’Brien, “Culture, Commodity, and Céad Míle Fáilte: U.S. and Irish Tourist Films as a Vision of Ireland,” Éire Ireland 37, nos. 1–2 (Spring/Summer 2002): 58–73; and Jeffrey Ruoff, “Show and Tell: The 16mm Travel Lecture Film,” in Ruoff, Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, 217–237.

182

Notes to Pages 39–43

58. ​Griffiths, “Time Traveling IMAX Style,” 239–252. 59. ​Stephen Groening, Cinema beyond Territory: Inflight Entertainment and Atmospheres of Globalisation (London: BFI/Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 47–50. 60. ​Geiger, American Documentary Film, 47, 63. 61. ​Casey Ryan Kelly, Food Tele­vi­sion and Otherness in the Age of Globalization (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017), 3, 114. 62. ​Soccerchump, “Study Abroad in Costa Rica with CEA!!,” February 10, 2018, YouTube video, 4:59, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=3­ jZkhAt​-­Bhk&t​=4­ s; WannaBeComedydotnet, “CEA Video Contest: A Firenze Friendzy,” February 15, 2008, YouTube video, 10:55, https://­www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=Q ­ u44UEDOupw; IES Abroad, “Tokyo | Film Festival 2014 Finalist | Japan: A Boy’s Journey,” September 1, 2014, YouTube video, 6:04, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​=­29BNR0YGd2I&t​=­188s. 63. ​IES Abroad, “Vienna | Film Festival 2016 ­Grand Prize Winner | Even in Eu­rope . . . ,” August  24, 2016, YouTube video, 4:02, https://­www​.y­ outube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​=­0iNv2eh4​ YZ8&t​=­47s; IES Abroad, “Rabat | Film Festival 2016 Finalist | I Choose Openness,” August 24, 2016, YouTube video, 9:04, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=o­ ORv3iZr​ _­Yg; Kate Guthrie, “ACIS Costa Rica 2016,” July 15, 2016, YouTube video, 2:16, https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­y6LsDsgnDOc; ISA, “ISA Student Video Contest 2013—​ ­‘Lights of Love’ by Nick Pakradooni,” October 23, 2013, YouTube video, 2:41, https://­www​ .­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​=o­ GFEYzFRSKA; Soccerchump, “Study Abroad in Costa Rica with CEA!!”; Feith, “Student Diplomat 2012 Video Contest”; ISA, “ISA Student Video Contest 2016: ­Grand Prize Winner -­Jack Lansford (Christchurch, New Zealand),” January  20, 2017, YouTube video, 3:35, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=y­ DIhgGpjg9c; AIFS, “AIFS Study Abroad—­Capture the Culture Winner—­Category: ­Grand Prize,” December 6, 2016, YouTube video, 4:03, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=N ­ I3BO2Y1​ WRc&t​=1­ 8s. 64. ​IES Abroad, “Beijing | Film Festival 2014 Winner | East of ­Here”; AIFS, “AIFS Study Abroad—­Capture the Culture Winner—­Category: Tradition . . . ​Tradition!,” June  8, 2016, YouTube video, 0:30, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­p0p​_­hrlgPnA&index​ =­7&list​=P ­ LOhSBVJu9bejwwOGHYzZCx​_­ORBxgB7O9O. 65. ​On the picturesque, see Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, 175–205. 66. ​Griffiths, “Time Traveling IMAX Style,” 240–241. 67. ​Hilary Lapedis, “Popping the Question: The Function and Effect of Popu­lar ­Music in Cinema,” Popu­lar M ­ usic 18, no. 3 (October 1999): 368–369. 68. ​William W. Hoffa, “Learning about the F ­ uture World: International Education and the Demise of the Nation State,” in Grünzweig and Rinehart, Rockin’ in Red Square, 59. 69. ​IES Abroad, “Paris | Film Festival 2019 G ­ rand Prize Winner | Les Cinq Mois,” October 1, 2019, YouTube video, 9:41, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=m ­ sRVmgTJVm4; IES Abroad, “Japan | Film Festival 2019 Finalist | Come Alive,” October 1, 2019, YouTube video, 4:56, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​=­GU2GzKkOajk&list​=P ­ Lf4F2f​-u­ c6sPWKI​4r060​ VYPsh​-­SxWMRkx&index​=­2; IES Abroad, “Dublin | Film Festival 2019 Finalist | Dear Dublin,” October 1, 2019, YouTube video, 9:56, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­SIlqT9BTSZk&​ list​=­PLf4F2f​-­uc6sPWKI4r060VYPsh​-­SxWMRkx&index​=3­ . 70. ​See Sarah C. Bishop, “The Rhe­toric of Study Abroad: Perpetuating Expectations and Results through Technological Enframing,” Journal of Studies in International Education 17,



Notes to Pages 43–48

183

no. 4 (2013): 398–413; Talya Zemach-­Bersin, “Selling the World: Study Abroad Marketing and the Privatization of Global Citizenship,” in The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, ed. Ross Lewin (New Brunswick, NJ: Routledge, 2009), 303–320; and Neriko Musha Doerr, “Study Abroad as ‘Adventure’: Globalist Construction of Host–­Home Hierarchy and Governed Adventurer Subjects,” Critical Discourse Studies 9, no. 3 (2012): 257–268. 71. ​Ross Lewin, “Introduction: The Quest for Global Citizenship through Study Abroad,” in Lewin, Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad, xv. 72. ​Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, 29. 73. ​ISA, “2017 Video Contest G ­ rand Prize Winner -­Haley Gasparine ISA Paris: My Study Abroad at a Glance,” January  5, 2018, YouTube video, 2:42, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?v­ ​=H ­ zHmYj​_­SHFw. 74. ​Bishop, “Rhe­toric of Study Abroad,” 405. 75. ​Tom Gunning, “Before Documentary: Early Nonfiction Films and the ‘View’ Aesthetic,” in Uncharted Territory: Essays on Early Nonfiction Film, ed. Daan Hertogs and Nico de Klerk (Amsterdam: Stichting Nederlands Filmmuseum, 1997), 9–24, quoted in Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, 144. 76. ​Peterson, 144. 77. ​Peterson, xvi. 78. ​Peterson, 8. 79. ​IES Abroad, “Paris | Film Festival 2019 G ­ rand Prize Winner | Les Cinq Mois”; IES Abroad, “Capetown | 2019 Film Festival Semi-­Finalist | Lekker,” November 8, 2019, YouTube video, 4:59, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­sepGhZyh2PQ&list​=P ­ Lf4F2f​-u­ c6s PWKI​4r060VYPsh​-­SxWMRkx&index​=­4; IES Abroad, “Madrid | Film Festival Semi-­ Finalist | A Story of Healing,” November 8, 2019, YouTube video, 7:47, https://­www​.­youtube​ .­com​/­watch​?­v​=K ­ GPIBIHZlrw&list​=P ­ Lf4F2f​-­uc6sPWKI4r060VYPsh​-­SxWMRkx&​ index​=­9. 80. ​Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams, 5–6. 81. ​Peterson, 6. 82. ​Peterson, 165, 167. 83. ​Peterson, 217–220. 84. ​Peterson, 6. 85. ​Neumann, “Amateur Film, Automobility and the Cinematic Aesthetics of Leisure,” 56–57. 86. ​ISA, “ISA Video Contest,” accessed January  31, 2020, https://­www​.­studiesabroad​ .­com​/­alumni​/­video​-­contest; IES, “Study Abroad Film Festival,” accessed January  31, 2020, https://­www​.­iesabroad​.­org​/­film​-­festival​/­submit; AIFS Study Abroad, “Capture the Culture Video Contest, accessed June  3, 2020, https://­www​.­aifsabroad​.­com​/­video​ -­contest​/­#sectio​-­1. 87. ​On the historical relationship of instruction manuals and amateur filmmaking aesthetics, see Orgeron, “Mobile Home Movies,” 75–100; and Zimmermann, Reel Families. 88. ​For YouTube’s ­music policy, see https://­www​.y ­ outube​.­com​/­music​_­policies, accessed April 23, 2018. 89. ​AIFS Study Abroad, “Capture the Culture Video Contest,” accessed June  3, 2020, https://­www​.­aifsabroad​.­com​/­video​-­contest​/­#sectio​-­1; AIFS Study Abroad, “Capture

184

Notes to Pages 48–52

the Culture Video Contest,” series of YouTube videos, last modified June 20, 2019, https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­playlist​?­list​=P ­ LOhSBVJu9begf3jso4Npj8tpNAUxdicSl. 90. ​For example, IES’s 2016 Film Festival ­Grand Prize Winner film Even in Eu­rope . . . ​is an imitation (an homage? a plagiarism?) of Matt Harding’s viral video series Where the Hell Is Matt?, which gained popularity in 2005. Neither the student filmmaker nor the “jury critique” mentions this. Thank you to the anonymous reader of this manuscript for pointing this out. 91. ​Grünzweig and Rinehart, “International Understanding,” 5. 92. ​En­glish, Economy of Prestige, 112. 93. ​En­glish, 113. 94. ​See Lilie Chouliaraki, “The Media as Moral Education: Mediation and Action,” Media, Culture & Society 30, no. 6 (2008): 831–852; Nick Couldry, Listening beyond the Echoes: Media, Ethics and Agency in an Uncertain World (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2006); Alexa Robertson, Mediated Cosmopolitanism (Cambridge: Polity, 2010); Roger Silverstone, Media and Morality: On the Rise of the Mediapolis (Cambridge: Polity, 2007); and John Tomlinson, “Beyond Connection: Cultural Cosmopolitan and Ubiquitous Media,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 14, no. 4 (2011): 347–361. 95. ​Silverstone, Media and Morality, 185. 96. ​Tomlinson, “Beyond Connection,” 357–358. 97. ​Ellen Strain, Public Places, Private Journeys: Ethnography, Entertainment, and the Tourist Gaze (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003), 16. 98. ​Grünzweig and Rinehart, “International Understanding,” 7. 99. ​John Engle and Lilli Engle, “Neither International nor Educative: Study Abroad in the Time of Globalization,” in Grünzweig and Rinehart, Rockin’ in Red Square, 34. 100. ​Engle and Engle, 29.

Chapter 2  Intercultural Communication among “Intimate Strangers” 1. ​Jason Middleton, Documentary’s

Awkward Turn: Cringe Comedy and Media Spectatorship (New York: Routledge, 2014), 19. 2. ​See Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn, Real­ity TV: Realism and Revelation (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), chapters 35–58. 3. ​Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), 99–138. 4. ​On the influence of real­ity tele­vi­sion on film and tele­vi­sion fiction, see June Deery, Real­ity TV (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2015), 20–21; Jelle Mast, “New Directions in Hybrid Popu­lar Tele­vi­sion: A Reassessment of Tele­vi­sion Mock-­Documentary,” Media, Culture and Society 31 (2009): 231–250; and Brett Mills, “Comedy Verite: Con­temporary Sitcom Form,” Screen 45 (2004): 63–78. 5. ​Deery, Real­ity TV, 74–75. 6. ​ John Corner, “Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions,” Tele­vi­sion & New Media 3, no. 3 (August 2002): 263. 7. ​Biressi and Nunn, Real­ity TV: Realism and Revelation, 46.



Notes to Pages 52–58

185

8. ​Darla K. Deardorff, “Understanding the Challenges of Assessing Global Citizenship,”

in The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, ed. Ross Lewin (New York: Routledge, 2009), 348–349. 9. ​Susan B. Twombly, Mark H. Salisbury, Shannon D. Tumanut, and Paul Klute, Study Abroad in a New Global ­Century: Renewing the Promise, Refining the Purpose, ASHE Higher Education Report 38, no. 4 (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals, 2012), 69. 10. ​Twombly et al., 72. 11. ​Twombly et  al., 72–73; Anthony  C. Ogden, Bernhard Streitwieser, and Emily  R. Crawford, “Empty Meeting Grounds: Situating Cultural Learning in US Education Abroad,” in Internationalisation of Higher Education and Global Mobility, ed. Bernhard Streitwieser (Oxford: Symposium Books, 2014), 243. 12. ​Allan Goodman, foreword to The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, ed. Ross Lewin (New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009), x. 13. ​On real­ity tele­vi­sion as a form of neoliberal governance, see Laurie Ouellette and James Hay, Better Living through Real­ity TV: Tele­vi­sion and Post-­Welfare Citizenship (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008); on negotiations of cultural identity through real­ ity tele­vi­sion, see Marwan M. Kraidy, Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and Arab Politics: Contention in Public Life (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010); on real­ity tele­vi­sion’s normalization of surveillance, see Mark Andrejevic, Real­ity TV: The Work of Being Watched (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). 14. ​See Crossing Borders Education, “Partnerships,” accessed October 19, 2018, https://­ crossingborders​.­education​/­about​/­partnerships​/­. 15. ​John Corner, “Form and Content in Documentary Study,” in The Tele­vi­sion Genre Book, 3rd ed., ed. Glen Creeber (London: British Film Institute, 2015), 147. 16. ​Dominic Pettman, “So You Think You Can Think,” Inside Higher Ed, August 26, 2013, http://­w ww​.­insidehighered​.­com​/­v iews​/­2013​/­08​/­26​/­essay​-­teaching​-­about​-­reality​-­t v​ -­turning​-­course​-r­ eality​-­tv. 17. ​Misha Kavka, Real­ity TV (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), 83. 18. ​Other lineages include instructional programming, quiz shows, talent competitions, CCTV-­based and ride-­along crime shows, talk shows, infotainment, direct cinema and cinema verité, and docusoaps. See Deery, Real­ity TV, 13–14. 19. ​Ouellette and Hay, Better Living through Real­ity TV, 191. 20. ​Deery, Real­ity TV, 37 21. ​Anna McCarthy, “Stanley Milgram, Allen Funt, and Me,” in Real­ity TV: Remaking Tele­vi­sion Culture, ed. Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 24. 22. ​Kavka, Real­ity TV, 87. 23. ​Kavka, 24. 24. ​Kavka, 88–92. 25. ​Ouellette and Hay, Better Living through Real­ity TV, 4. 26. ​Stella Bruzzi, New Documentary (London: Routledge, 2006), 123. 27. ​Kavka, Real­ity TV, 81. 28. ​Kavka, 83.

186

Notes to Pages 58–72

29. ​Ouellette and Hay, Better Living through Real­ity TV, 192. 30. ​Ouellette and Hay, 193–194. 31. ​Ouellette and Hay 8. 32. ​Kavka, Real­ity TV, 83. 33. ​Semester at Sea is now administered by Colorado State University. 34. ​On Road Rules and race, see Mark Andrejevic and Dean Colby, “Racism and Real­ity

TV: The Case of MTV’s Road Rules,” in How Real Is Real­ity TV? Essays on Repre­sen­ta­tion and Truth, ed. David S. Escoffery ( Jefferson, NC: McFarland, Jefferson, 2006), 195–211. 35. ​Annette Hill, Real­ity TV: Audiences and Popu­lar Factual Tele­vi­sion (London: Routledge, 2005), 66. 36. ​Kavka, Real­ity TV, 43. 37. ​Andrejevic, Real­ity TV, 97. 38. ​Andrejevic, 97–107. 39. ​Kavka, Real­ity TV, 95. 40. ​Corner, “Performing the Real,” 261. 41. ​Andrejevic, Real­ity TV, 108. 42. ​Andrejevic, 106–110. 43. ​Andrejevic, 110. 44. ​Leigh H. Edwards, The Triumph of Real­ity TV: The Revolution in American Tele­vi­sion (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2013), 57. 45. ​Deery, Real­ity TV, 43. H ­ ere she is drawing on the work of Andrejevic, Real­ity TV; Hill, Audiences and Popu­lar Factual Tele­vi­sion; Nick Couldry, “Making Populations Appear,” in The Politics of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion: Global Perspectives, ed. Marwan M. Kraidy and Katherine Sender (New York: Routledge, 2011), 194–206; Janet Megan Jones, “Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big ­Brother Transmissions: Investigating the Bound­aries between Notions of Consumers and Producers of Factual Tele­vi­sion,” New Media & Society 5, no. 3 (2003): 400–421; Beverley Skeggs and Helen Wood, Reacting to Real­ity Tele­vi­ sion: Per­for­mance, Audience, and Value (New York: Routledge, 2012). 46. ​Edwards, Triumph of Real­ity TV, 8–9. 47. ​Kraidy, Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and Arab Politics, 207. 48. ​Kraidy, 208. 49. ​Deery, Real­ity TV, 3. 50. ​Daria Berg, “A New Spectacle in China’s Mediasphere: A Cultural Reading of a Web-­ Based Real­ity Show from Shanghai,” China Quarterly 205 (2011): 141. 51. ​Berg, 143. 52. ​Kraidy, Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and Arab Politics, 14–15. 53. ​Katherine Sender, “Real Worlds: Migrating Genres, Travelling Participants, Shifting Theories,” in The Politics of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion: Global Perspectives, ed. Marwan M. Kraidy and Katherine Sender (New York: Routledge, 2011), 1. 54. ​Marwan M. Kraidy, “Real­ity Tele­vi­sion in New Worlds,” in Kraidy and Sender, Politics of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion, 214. 55. ​Kavka, Real­ity TV, 55. 56. ​“About: Our Mission and Objectives,” Crossing Borders Education, accessed October 12, 2018, http://­crossingborders​.­education​/­about​/­.



Notes to Pages 76–82

187

57. ​Colin S. Hawes and Shuyu Kong, “Primetime Dispute Resolution: Real­ity TV Medi-

ation Shows in China’s ‘Harmonious Society,’ ” Law & Society Review 47, no. 4 (2013): 739. 58. ​Hawes and Kong, 758. 59. ​Hawes and Kong, 739–740. 60. ​Laura Grindstaff, “Just Be Yourself—­Only More So: Ordinary Celebrity in the Era of Self-­Service Tele­vi­sion,” in Kraidy and Sender, Politics of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion, 51; Alison Hearn, “ ‘John, a 20 Year Old Boston Native with a ­Great Sense of Humor’: On the Spectacularization of the ‘Self ’ and Incorporation of Identity in the Age of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion,” in The Celebrity Culture Reader, ed. P. David Marshall (London: Routledge, 2006), 621. 61. ​Graeme Turner, “Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and the Demotic Turn,” in A Companion to Real­ ity Tele­vi­sion, ed. Laurie Ouellette (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2017), 317. 62. ​Annette Hill, Restyling Factual TV: Audiences and News, Documentary and Real­ity Genres (New York: Routledge, 2007), 215. 63. ​Turner, “Real­ity Tele­vi­sion,” 317. 64. ​Deery, Real­ity TV, 45.

Chapter 3  House Hunters International 1. ​CIEE

Study Abroad, “A Study Abroad Homestay in Morocco,” March 30, 2012, YouTube video, 2:54, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=P ­ JvW91r​_­T Ys. 2. ​Wenhao Diao, Barbara Freed, and Leigh Smith, “Confirmed Beliefs or False Assumptions? A Study of Home Stay Experiences in the French Study Abroad Context,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 21 (Fall 2011): 110–111. Also see Susan M. Knight and Barbara C. Schmidt-­Rinehart, “Exploring Conditions to Enhance Student/ Host ­Family Interaction Abroad,” Foreign Language Annals 43, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 64–79. 3. ​R . Michael Paige, Andrew  D. Cohen, Barbara Kappler, Julie  C. Chi, and James  P. Lassegard, Maximizing Study Abroad: A Students’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2002), 85. 4. ​ Jennie Germann Molz, “Home and Mobility in Narratives of Round-­the-­World Travel,” Space and Culture 11, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 326. 5. ​Germann Molz, 326–327. 6. ​Germann Molz, 328. 7. ​Patricia R. Zimmermann, “The Home Movie Movement: Excavations, Artifacts, Minings,” in Mining the Home Movie: Excavations in Histories and Memories, ed. Karen L. Ishizuka and Patricia R. Zimmermann (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 1. 8. ​Michael Strangelove, Watching YouTube: Extraordinary Videos by Ordinary ­ People (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 43. 9. ​Strangelove, 27. 10. ​Patricia R. Zimmermann, Reel Families: A Social History of Amateur Film (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 122. 11. ​Zimmermann, 132. 12. ​Roger Odin, “Reflections on the ­Family Home Movie as Document: A Semio-­ pragmatic Approach,” in Ishizuka and Zimmermann, Mining the Home Movie: Excavations in Histories and Memories, 262.

188

Notes to Pages 83–90

13. ​Strangelove, Watching YouTube, 29. 14. ​James M. Moran, ­There’s No Place Like Home Video, Vis­i­ble Evidence 12, no. 54 (Min-

neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 42. 15. ​See John Gilliom and Torin Monahan, Supervision: An Introduction to the Surveillance

Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 17. 16. ​Devin Orgeron, “Mobile Home Movies: Travel and le Politique des Amateurs,” Mov-

ing Image 6, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 75–100. On the centrality of travel to amateur and home movies, see Zimmermann, Reel Families, 123; Heather Norris Nicholson, “Telling Travelers’ Tales: The World through Home Movies,” in Engaging Film: Geographies of Mobility and Identity, ed. Tim Cresswell and Deborah Dixon (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 49–68; Richard Chalfen, Snapshot Versions of Life (Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Press, 1987); and Alan Kattelle, Home Movies: A History of the American Industry, 1897–1979 (Nashua, NH: Transition Publishing, 2000). 17. ​For example, Gay F ­ amily Values, “Gay F ­ amily Values March on Washington,” October 13, 2009, YouTube video, 7:36, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­TL23anj2vWI&t​=2­ 9s. 18. ​Mary Douglas, “The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space,” Social Research 58, no.  1 (Spring 1991): 287. 19. ​Gwendolyn Wright, “Prescribing the Model Home,” Social Research 58, no. 1 (Spring 1991): 213. 20. ​Wright, 214. 21. ​IES Abroad, “Rio/Homestays/This Is Study Abroad,” May 19, 2014, YouTube video, 2:01, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­g​-­CsjbJwe2E&t​=0­ s&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozq VhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index​=­6. 22. ​Chalfen, Snapshot Versions of Life, 72. 23. ​DIS-­Study Abroad, “Live in a DIS Homestay,” February  14, 2014, YouTube video, 5:30, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­aBHkkW9RKVw&t​=1­ s. 24. ​Strangelove, Watching YouTube, 40. 25. ​Strangelove, 40. 26. ​Talya Zemach-­Bersin, “Selling the World: Study Abroad Marketing and the Privatization of Global Citizenship,” in The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, ed. Ross Lewin (New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009), 303. 27. ​Sarah  C. Bishop, “The Rhe­toric of Study Abroad: Perpetuating Expectations and Results through Technological Enframing, Journal of Studies in International Education 17, no. 4 (2013): 398–413. 28. ​Nico de Klerk, “Home Away from Home: Private Films from the Dutch East Indies,” in Ishizuka and Zimmermann, Mining the Home Movie, 148. 29. ​De Klerk, “Home Away from Home,” 148. 30. ​Zimmermann, Reel Families, 132–133. 31. ​De Klerk, “Home Away from Home,” 149. 32. ​Shawn Shimpach, “Realty Real­ity: HGTV and the Subprime Crisis,” American Quarterly (2012): 537. 33. ​Shimpach, 529. 34. ​Shimpach, 530.



Notes to Pages 91–95

189

35. ​Shimpach, 537. 36. ​Xelian

Xelian, “My Homestay in Japan: D,” August  13, 2013, YouTube video, 8:05, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=j­58fr1rGXi0&list​=P ­ LWpY8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQ uDOpsInrYvip&index​=4­ 2&t​=0­ s. 37. ​Dennis ­Sullivan, “My Homestay House in Japan,” February 23, 2014, YouTube video, 10:55, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­F0ob7MMk2qc&list​=P ­ LWpY8EHJuZozqV hIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index​=­24&t​=­0s. 38. ​David, “Tour of Host F ­ amily’s Home,” August 26, 2012, YouTube video, 10:54, https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=q­ E17xS36IWI. 39. ​Greenheart Exchange, “Sarah’s Tour of Her Host ­Family’s Home in Austria,” May 24, 2013, YouTube video, 2:09, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=q­ 0qvLBYKzFU. 40. ​TealColoredICE, “First Host ­Family Tour!!! Japan Rotary Youth Exchange (V-­Log #4),” October 27, 2014, YouTube video, 10:59, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­JIK4qICZJDI. 41. ​Indeed, while t­ here are twenty videos about her study abroad on Kitsukara’s YouTube page, this par­tic­ul­ar homestay video is no longer available for public viewing. Kitsukara, “Japan Exchange: First Host ­Family House,” May 14, 2016, YouTube video. 42. ​Christina Fernandez, “Tour of My Japa­nese Host ­Family’s House,” July 2, 2012, YouTube video, 7:41, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­AhLsQoHMSc0&t​=3­ 56s. 43. ​XOXOARIELK, “My Host ­Family’s Apartment Tour [2014] [Spain Edition],” June 3, 2014, YouTube video, 10:13, https://­www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=I­ N4SggtiOCk&list​=­PL WpY8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index​=­56&t​=­4s. 44. ​BeksBackwardBeauty, “Host F ­ amily House Tour,” July 15, 2013, YouTube video, 4:38, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­I1kQKBgcftg&index​=­38&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozq VhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&t​=­0s. 45. ​Nerdy Nuna, “Tour of Oaxacan Homestay!,” January 20, 2013, YouTube video, 6:58, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=B ­ jolVw8​_­zKg&t​=­16s. 46. ​WhoaNelli, “Spain Study Abroad #41 My Spain Homestay Tour,” February 1, 2016, YouTube video, 6:02, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=j­4hSWa9Wf0I&list​=P ­ LWpY 8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index​=­13&t​=­0s. 47. ​Sarah’sSeoulSearch, “My Host ­Family’s Korean Apartment (HS Exchange),” May 17, 2013, YouTube video, 8:52, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​=0­ nOYnTyqFsM&list​=­P LWpY8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index​=1­ 7&t​=­319s. 48. ​FirexEnigma, “Amanda in Japan: My Host ­Family’s House,” April 25, 2013, YouTube video, 5:31, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​=v­ YIL66XulDk&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZoz qVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index​=­33&t​=0­ s. 49. ​Carol Crawshaw and John Urry, “Tourism and the Photographic Eye,” in Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, ed. Chris Rojek and John Urry (New York: Routledge, 1997), 178. 50. ​Crawshaw and Urry, 179. 51. ​Ellen Strain, Public Places, Private Journeys: Ethnography, Entertainment, and the Tourist Gaze (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003), 24. 52. ​Strain, 25. 53. ​Strain, 2. 54. ​Xelian Xelian, “My Homestay in Japan: D.”

190

Notes to Pages 96–103

55. ​Strain, Public Places, 27. 56. ​Susan Sontag, On Photography (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 9–10. 57. ​Strain, Public Places, 18. 58. ​Strain, 17. 59. ​Amanda

Kennelly, “Hiroshima Home Stay (part 1),” May 22, 2007, YouTube video, 5:47, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​=T ­ F6tLxyOZRA&t​=­1s. 60. ​Strain, Public Places, 17. 61. ​Valentina Tobin, “Vlog #27-­My Host ­Family’s Japa­nese House-­Exchange Student in Japan,” February  28, 2014, YouTube video, 17:55, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​ =­RqolJK2wbxg&index​=­37&t​=6­ 3s&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip. 62. ​Moran, ­There’s No Place, 61. 63. ​Hamid Naficy, “Framing Exile: From Homeland to Homepage,” in Home, Exile, Homeland: Film, Media, and the Politics of Place, ed. Hamid Naficy (New York: Routledge, 1999), 4. 64. ​Patricia Seed, “The Key to the House,” in Naficy, Home, Exile, Homeland, 84–94. 65. ​Strangelove, Watching YouTube, 45–46. 66. ​ Danada11, “My Homestay in Toronto City,” July  28, 2007, YouTube video, 2:50, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­Atjm7qK​_­xzY. 67. ​Strangelove, Watching YouTube, 46. 68. ​Strangelove, 47. 69. ​Alexandra Schneider, “Homemade Travelogues: Autosonntag—­a Film Safari in the Swiss Alps,” in Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, ed. Jeffrey Ruoff (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006), 171. 70. ​Zimmermann, Reel Families, 66. 71. ​James A. Coleman and Tony Chafer, “Study Abroad and the Internet: Physical and Virtual Context in an Era of Expanding Telecommunications,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 19, no. 1 (2010): 165. 72. ​Victor Savicki, “An Analy­sis of the Contact Types of Study Abroad Students: The Peer Cohort, the Host Culture and the Electronic Presence of the Home Culture in Relation to Readiness and Outcomes,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 19 (Fall/Winter 2010): 64. 73. ​See Barbara K. Hofer, Stacey Woody Thebodo, Kristen Meredith, Zoe Kaslow, and Alexandra Saunders, “The Long Arm of the Digital Tether: Communication with Home during Study Abroad,” Frontiers: The International Journal of Study Abroad 28 (Fall 2016): 27; Jude  P. Mikal and Kathryn Grace, “Against Abstinence-­Only Education Abroad: Viewing Internet Use during Study Abroad as a Pos­si­ble Experience Enhancement,” Journal of Studies in International Education 16, no. 3 (2012): 287–306; Sarah Wooley, “Constantly Connected: The Impact of Social Media and the Advancement in Technology on the Study Abroad Experience,” Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communication 4, no.  2 (2013), http://­www​.­inquiriesjournal​.­com​/­articles​/­822​/­3​/­constantly​-­connected​ -­the​-­impact​-­of​-­social​-­media​-­and​-­the​-­advancement​-­in​-­technology​-­on​-­the​-­study​-­abroad​ -­experience; Lilli Engle and John Engle, “Beyond Immersion: The American University Center of Provence Experiment in Holistic Intervention,” in Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning, What Th ­ ey’re Not, and What We Can Do About It, ed. Michael Vande Berg, R.  Michael Paige, and Kris Hemming Lou (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2012), 284–307; and Patricia R. Hetz, Christi L. Dawson, and Theresa A. Cul-



Notes to Pages 103–108

191

len, “Social Media Use and the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) While Studying Abroad,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 47, no. 4 (2015): 259–272. 74. ​Robert Huesca, “How Facebook Can Ruin Study Abroad,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January  14, 2013, https://­www​.c­ hronicle​.c­ om​/­article​/­How​-­Facebook​-­Can​-­Ruin​ -­Study​/­136633. 75. ​Hofer et al., “Long Arm,” 24. 76. ​Hofer et al., 27. 77. ​Savicki, “Analy­sis of the Contact Types,” 82. 78. ​Mikal and Grace “Against Abstinence-­Only Education Abroad.”

Chapter 4  Study Abroad’s Diversity Prob­l em 1. ​Teryn Payne, “Momo Pixel ‘Hair Nah’ Video Game Interview,” Teen Vogue, January 5,

2018, https://­www​.­teenvogue​.­com​/­story​/­momo​-­pixel​-­hair​-­nah​-­video​-­game​-­interview. 2. ​ Hair Nah, created by Momo Pixel (2017), developed by Trent Johnson, ­music by Brandon Broadus, http://­hairnah​.­com. 3. ​Gary Totten, African American Travel Narratives from Abroad: Mobility and Cultural Work in the Age of Jim Crow (Amherst: University of Mas­sa­chu­setts Press, 2015), 6. 4. ​Totten, 10. 5. ​Simone Brown, Dark ­Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015), 156. 6. ​Brown, 145, 140, 132–133, 138–139. 7. ​Heather Schwedel, “Momo Pixel Lives Life in 8-­Bit,” Slate, December 27, 2017, https://­ slate​.­com​/­technology​/­2017​/­12​/­how​-­momo​-­pixel​-­creator​-­of​-­hair​-­nah​-­uses​-­the​-­internet​ .­html. 8. ​Victor H. Green, The Negro Travelers’ Green Book (New York: Victor H. Green, 1956). 9. ​“African American Travel Represents $63 Billion Opportunity,” West, December  20, 2018, https://­www​.­globenewswire​.­com​/­news​-­release​/­2018​/­12​/­20​/­1670310​/­0​/­en​/A ­ frican​ -­American​-T ­ ravel​-­Represents​-­63​-­Billion​-­Opportunity​.­html. 10. ​Alana  K. Dillette, Stefanie Benjamin, and Chelsea Carpenter, “Tweeting the Black Travel Experience: Social Media Counternarrative Stories as Innovative Insight on #TravelingWhileBlack,” Journal of Travel Research 58, no. 8 (2019): 1358. 11. ​See NNPAFreddie, “Racist Incidents Prompt Airbnb Partnership with NAACP to Help Blacks Cash In,” BlackpressUSA, April  15, 2019, https://­www​.­blackpressusa​.­com​ /­racist​-­incidents​-­prompt​-­airbnb​-­partnership​-­with​-­naacp​-­to​-­help​-­blacks​-­cash​-­in​/­; and Veronica Rocha, “Group of Black ­Women Kicked Off Napa Train ­after Laughing Too Loud,” Los Angeles Times, August 24, 2015, https://­www​.­latimes​.­com​/­local​/­lanow​/­la​-m ­ e​ -­ln​-b­ lack​-­women​-­kicked​-­off​-­napa​-­wine​-­train​-­20150824​-­htmlstory​.­html. 12. ​See Tiffany  M. Gill, “ ‘The World Is Ours, Too’: Millennial W ­ omen and the New Black Travel Movement,” in ­Women and Migration: Responses in Art and History, ed. Deborah Willis, Ellyn Toscano, and Kalia Brooks Nelson (Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2019), 395–414. 13. ​Dillette, Benjamin, and Carpenter, “Tweeting the Black Travel,” 3. 14. ​Pearson, “Beyond Millennials: The Next Generation of Learners,” Global Research & Insights, 2018, https://­www​.­pearson​.­com​/­content​/­dam​/­one​-­dot​-­com​/­one​-­dot​-­com​

192

Notes to Pages 108–112

/­global​/­Files​/­news​/­news​-­annoucements​/­2018​/­The​-­Next​-­Generation​-­of​-­L earners​ _­final​.­pdf. 15. ​IIE: The Power of International Education, “Student Profile,” accessed February  1, 2020, https://­www​.­iie​.­org​/­Research​-­and​-I­ nsights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Data​/­US​-­Study​-­Abroad​ /­Student​-­Profile. 16. ​Clander, “#72 Study Abroad,” Stuff White ­People Like (blog), February  22, 2008. https://­stuffwhitepeoplelike​.­com​/­2008​/­02​/­22​/­72​-­study​-­abroad​/­. 17. ​IIE: The Power of International Education, “Student Profile.” 18. ​Institute of Education Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics (IES NCES), “Digest of Education Statistics,” accessed September 15, 2019, https://­nces​.­ed​.g­ ov​/p­ rograms​ /­digest​/d­ 17​/­tables​/d­ t17​_­306​.­10​.­asp. 19. ​See CIEE: Council on International Educational Exchange, Black Students and Overseas Programs: Broadening the Base of Participation (New York: Council on International Educational Exchange, 1991); NAFSA, A National Mandate for Education Abroad: Getting On with the Task, Report of the National Task Force on Undergraduate Education Abroad (Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association for International Educators, 1990); NAFSA, Securing Amer­i­ca’s ­Future: Global Education for a Global Age; Report of the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad (Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 2003; and Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, Global Competence and National Needs: One Million Americans Studying Abroad (Washington, DC, 2005). 20. ​For example, the University of Michigan’s Center for Global and Intercultural Study has the web page “Identities Abroad,” which allows students to search for information about many dif­fer­ent identity categories, including “racial and ethnic identities abroad.” See “Identities Abroad,” University of Michigan, Center for Global and Intercultural Study, accessed July  1, 2019, https://­lsa​.­umich​.­edu​/­cgis​/­undergraduate​-­students​/­identities​ -­abroad​.­html. See also Diversity Abroad (website), accessed July 10, 2019, https://­www​ .­diversitynetwork​.­org; and Teens of Color Abroad (website), accessed July  10, 2019, https://­www​.­teensofcolorabroad​.­org. 21. ​Laignee Barron, “French Art School Apologizes for Doctored Photo That Added Black ­Faces,” Time, September  14, 2018, https://­time​.­com​/­5396060​/­france​-­art​-­school​ -­black​-­faces​-­photo​/­. 22. ​M’Balia Thomas, “The Problematization of Racial/Ethnic Minority Student Participation in U.S. Study Abroad,” Applied Linguistics Review 4, no. 2 (2013): 378. 23. ​Thomas, 366. 24. ​Karyn Sweeney, “Inclusive Excellence and Underrepre­sen­ta­tion of Students of Color in Study Abroad,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 23 (Fall 2013): 4. 25. ​Anna Poletti and Julie Rak, “Introduction: Digital Dialogues,” in Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online, ed. Anna Poletti and Julie Rak (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2014), 4, 5. 26. ​Emma Maguire, Girls, Autobiography, Media: Gender and Self-­Mediation in Digital Economies (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 14. 27. ​Skinsfanus, “S.  A.  W.  B. (Studying Abroad While Black),” June  26, 2016, YouTube video, 2:15, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­hBwzO7phc9U&list​=­PLWpY8EHJu​ Zoz​AHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=8­ . 28. ​See Sweeney, “Inclusive Excellence,” 2013.



Note to Page 112

193

29. ​This chapter draws on the following thirty-­two vlogs:

1. Sierra LaFaye, “All About My Experience Being Black in Spain—­Black Study Abroad,” April 18, 2019, YouTube video, 10:48, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​ =­1rhL8O0OkKE&list​=­PLWpY8E HJuZoz​AHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=13. 2. Nioby Monroe, “My Study Abroad Experience: Being Black in Madrid, Spain!!!,” March 6, 2019, YouTube video, 10:28, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­Hw60​ Svvil​Ho&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=­21&t​=0­ s. 3. Miracle Martrice, “Black and Abroad Part 1: My First Week in Amsterdam,” June  24, 2018, YouTube video, 4:22, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­gzzS1​ EIgv​C0&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=­103. 4. Kenira, “Black in K ­ orea | First Day—­Travel Vlog 1,” September 3, 2018, YouTube video, 8:57, https://­www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­sSLGegTQ3Xg&list​=P ­ LWpY​8​ EH​JuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=1­ 04. 5. Iamblvcksheep, “Black Girls Travel: I Got Accepted Abroad/USAC Pro­cess!,” April 2, 2017, YouTube video, 10:29, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­mCAm7t​ _­sQsk&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=2­ 1. 6. ChrisLuvs HongKong, “Black in Hong Kong Vlog Ep. 1! Study Abroad in Hong Kong!,” March 26, 2016, YouTube video, 13:54, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​ =­Cbw4BPEsQuk&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=3­ 6. 7. Donnie C, “Black in Germany: What I Noticed. . . . ,” July 25, 2018, YouTube video, 15:52, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​=w ­ 9gscNwrros&list​=­PLWpY8​EHJuZoz​ AHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=­22. 8. HELLO ALTINE, “Our Study Abroad Experience: Being Black in China,” September  28, 2016, YouTube video, 38:30, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=O ­ n​ NdwDFEJDA&list​=P ­ LWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-A ­ &index​=­10. 9. Tara  E., “Last Study Abroad Q & A|Being a POC, Housing, Classes, + More,” May  1, 2017, YouTube video, 14:30, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­TvltDZ​ 9qzNs&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=­12. 10. Kerry Thompson, “My Study Abroad Experience | Australia Pt. 2-­Let’s Talk Black Hair,” January 21, 2018, YouTube video, 4:33, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​ =­4VtzRVce1js&list​=P ­ LWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=­13. 11. Artemis November, “Being Black in ­Korea // The Study Abroad Edition,” July 20, 2018, YouTube video, 11:02, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=X ­ 3489dPtv​B0​ &list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=­29. 12. Beeextremist, “Young, Black and Abroad,” March  21, 2011, YouTube video, 2:34, https://­w ww​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?­v ​= 0­ l4Fb1GrcEE&list​= P ­ LWpY8EHJuZoz​ AHs5​GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=­84. 13. “I Found a Black Girl in Spain! & This Is What We Did | Study Abroad Spain,” n.d., YouTube video (removed from YouTube), https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v​ =­bCWgSl7t3vA&list​=­PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-­A&index​=4­ 9. 14. Gcsuczechpoint, “The First Black Person I Met,” May 14, 2006, YouTube video, 2:58, https://­w ww​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­B1Wq6Cp44Jw&list​=­PLWpY8​EHJu​Zoz​ AHs5​GFtxK97J​_z­ X0ymK​-­A&index​=­110. 15. Imani Bailiee, “Study Abroad Barcelona Vlog 3: Met Someone Black, Pre-­drinks? and Shopping,” October 2, 2018, YouTube video, 15:53, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​

194

Note to Page 112

/­w atch​ ?­v ​= i­ sOY3pnjJd4&list​= P ­ LWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​ _­z X0ymK​ -­A&index​=9­ . 16. AFI ELIZABETH, “Vlog #1: A Day in My Life Studying Abroad in France,” May 29, 2018, YouTube video, 20:59, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­NMM​ wz​38sfOg&list​=P ­ LWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_­zX0ymK​-A ­ &index​=­20&t​=3­ 4s. 17. Gabby Beauvais, “I’m the Only Black Person in the Czech Republic?? | Study Abroad Travel Vlog,” December 16, 2018, YouTube video, 8:52, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?­v​= ­lDoGZIrMmas&list​= ­PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​ _­z X0ymK​ -­A&index​=2­ 7. 18. Kahlea Khabir, “5 Tips for Studying Abroad as a Conscious Black Girl-­Brasil,” December  7, 2016, YouTube video, 25:50, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v =j0BL​8XA3iSU&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=71. 19. Nneya Richards, “Studying Abroad While Black,” January 24, 2018, YouTube video, 5:19, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=TFmqt3ausJk&t=3s. 20. Latersay, “Jordan Vlog | Study Abroad | Part One | Black Girls Travel!,” February 5, 2019, YouTube video, 7:34, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=ySPMWg1​ZQ​ EM​&t=1s. 21. NIA TARAH, “Paris Vlog 2 (Eiffel Tower),” April 14, 2013, YouTube video, 2:37, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=5jAoCzdTS_E&list=PLivhzU_ijtfCzTYets yBxCGVTjbb1okwH&index=4&t=6s. 22. NIA TARAH, “Paris Vlog! (chipotle!),” April  12, 2013, YouTube video, 2:21, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=YNRCPN828IU&list=PLivhzU_ijtfCzTYe tsyBxCGVTjbb1okwH&index=5&t=0s. 23. NIA TARAH, “Nia Tarah Traveling (Thoughts in Sicily) Ft Dom the Bomb! *Study Abroad*,” March 9, 2013, YouTube video, 5:47, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​ ?­v=0vOMCbtFahg&list=PLivhzU_ijtfCzTYetsyBxCGVTjbb1okwH&index=8. 24. JorWish, “My Week Studying Abroad in London!!!,” July 14, 2018, YouTube video, 13:12, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=5PpsqeqI7vo&list=PLWpY8EHJuZoz AHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=140. 25. Bintou Waiga, “Black in Nicaragua-­My Study Abroad Experience| Bintou Waiga,” February 12, 2018, YouTube video, 17:02, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=lb7 FL0M4frs&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=4. 26. Vionna Moore, “Do Black College Students Study Abroad?? \ Tips/Encouragement,” May 9, 2017, YouTube video, 10:11, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com /watch?v=Be j7UD8kHlc&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=43. 27. Jade Nikaylah, “Study Abroad | Tips and Advice from My Experience,” June  13, 2017, YouTube video, 16:49, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=i3pY5p962hI&list =PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=137. 28. India Summers, “Study Abroad in Thailand | Vlog 1 | Take Off & Orientation,” September 13, 2016, YouTube video, 8:32, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com /watch?v=d D7S2hwvMzw&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=14. 29. Simply Timah, “Study Abroad Vlog: Wild Day in Milan, Italy,” April 21, 2018, YouTube video, 5:15, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=YtyQSYLrt-­c&list=PLWp Y8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=16&t=0s.



Notes to Pages 112–119

195

30. Tramsue, “| 20 Hour Travel Day to Greece! | Study Abroad Vlog | Travel Vlog |tramsue |,” January  10, 2019, YouTube video, 14:53, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?v­ =OvgrbhQtG00&t=12s. 31. Ashley Akemi, “Study Abroad in Japan! | Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, Japan,” July 3, 2017, YouTube video, 5:58, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=E4e​T1PZ5g​ wg&​list =PLWpY8EHJu​ZozAHs5GFtx​K97J​_zX0ymK-­A&index=35. 32. NaturallyKenya, “An American Girl’s Experience in Sweden | Studying Abroad in Stockholm,” November 10, 2015, YouTube video, 10:12, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?­v=AINCOKfy_U8&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​_zX0ymK​ -­A&index=39. 30. ​Diversity Abroad. “Tips for Traveling in China as a Black Person,” November 18, 2017, https://­www​.­diversityabroad​.­com​/­articles​/­tips​-­traveling​-c­ hina​-­black​-­person. 31. ​Brandon Miller, “YouTube as Educator: A Content Analy­sis of Issues, Themes, and the Educational Value of Transgender-­Created Online Videos,” Social Media + Society, April–­June 2017, 4. 32. ​See Glen Creeber, “It’s Not TV, It’s Online Drama: The Return of the Intimate Screen,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 14, no. 6 (2011): 591–606; Maggie Griffith and Zizi Papacharissi, “Looking for You: An Analy­sis of Video Blogs,” First Monday 15, nos. 1–4 ( January 2010), https://­firstmonday​.­org​/­ojs​/­index​.­php​/­fm​/­article​/­view​/­2769​ /­2430#p1; Adi Kuntsman, “Introduction: Affective Fabrics of Digital Culture,” in Digital Cultures and the Politics of Emotion: Feelings, Affect and Technological Change, ed. Athina Karatzogianni and Adi Kuntsman (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 1–21. 33. ​ Karoliina Talvitie-­Lamberg, “Confessions in Social Media—­Performative, Constrained, Au­then­tic and Participatory Self-­Representations in Vlogs” (PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2014), 50. 34. ​Kandace L. Harris, “ ‘Follow Me on Instagram’: ‘Best-­Self ’ Identity Construction and Gaze through Hashtag Activism and Selfie Self-­Love,” in ­Women of Color and Social Media Multitasking: Blogs, Timelines, Feeds, and Community, ed. Keisha Edwards Tassie and Sonja M. Brown Givens (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015), 132. 35. ​Lee Humphreys, The Qualified Self: Social Media and the Accounting of Everyday Life (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018), 13. 36. ​Humphreys, 9–10. 37. ​Humphreys, 19. 38. ​Humphreys, 18–19. 39. ​Henry Jenkins, “Youth Voice, Media, and Po­liti­cal Engagement: Introducing the Core Concepts,” in By Any Means Necessary: The New Youth Activism, ed. Henry Jenkins, Sangita Shresthova, Liana Gamber-­Thompson, Neta Kliger-­Vilenchik, and Arely M. Zimmerman (New York: New York University Press, 2016), 26. 40. ​See, for example, Sophie Bishop, “Anxiety, Panic and Self-­Optimization: Inequalities and the YouTube Algorithm,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 24, no. 1 (2018): 69–84; Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, “On ­YouTube’s Visual Playground, an Open Gate for Pedophiles,” New York Times, June 3, 2019, https://­w ww​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2019​/­06​/­03​/­world​/­americas​/­youtube​-­pedophiles​.­html; Swathi Meenakshi Sadagopan, “Feedback Loops and Echo Chambers: How Algorithms

196

Notes to Pages 119–125

Amplify Viewpoints,” The Conversation, February 4, 2019, http://­theconversation​.­com​ /­feedback​-­loops​-­and​-­echo​-­chambers​-­how​-­algorithms​-­amplify​-v­ iewpoints​-­107935. 41. ​Linda Charmaraman, Bernice Huiying Chan, T ­ emple Price, and Amanda Richer, “­Women of Color Cultivating Virtual Social Capital: Surviving and Thriving,” in Tassie and Givens, ­Women of Color and Social Media Multitasking, 2. 42. ​Jean Burgess and Joshua Green, YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2009), 90. 43. ​Stephen Graham, “The End of Geography or the Explosion of Place? Conceptualizing Space, Place and Information Technology,” in The New Media and CyberCultures Anthology, ed. Pramod K. Nayar (Malden, MA: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2010), 95. 44. ​Humphreys, Qualified Self, 13–14. 45. ​Talvitie-­Lamberg, “Confessions in Social Media,” 51; see Ken Hillis, Online a Lot of the Time: Ritual, Fetish, Sign (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009); Tobias Raun, “DIY Therapy: Exploring Affective Self-­Representations in Trans Video Blogs on YouTube,” in Karatzogianni and Kuntsman, Digital Cultures and the Politics of Emotion, 165– 180; and Theresa M. Senft, Camgirls: Celebrity & Community in the Age of Social Networks (New York: Peter Lang), 2008.

Chapter 5  Spy Kids 1. ​See the short drama Game

of Pawns: The Glenn Duffie Shriver Story, directed by Tom Feliu, written by Sean Paul Murphy, featuring Josh Murray (Washington, DC: FBI Counterintelligence Division, 2014); and links to ancillary material at FBI, “Advice for U.S. College Students Abroad: Be Aware of Foreign Intelligence Threat,” April 14, 2014, https://­ www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­news​/­stories​/­advice​-­for​-­us​-­college​-­students​-­abroad. A full description of the Espionage Act 18 U.S.C. §793 can be found at ­Legal Information Institute, “18 U.S. Code §793. Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information,” Cornell Law School, accessed April 5, 2019, https://­www​.­law​.­cornell​.­edu​/­uscode​/­text​/­18​/­793. 2. ​See Depart Smart, “Media Inquiries,” accessed April 7, 2019, http://­www​.­clearcause​ foundation​.­org​/­media​-­inquiries​/­; and Sara’s Wish Foundation, accessed April  2, 2019, http://­www​.s­ araswish​.­org. 3. ​FBI, National Security Concerns for Study Abroad Students, February 26, 2016, https://­ www​.­messiah​.­edu​/­download​/­downloads​/­id​/­9 67​/­National​_­Security​_­Concerns​_­for​ _­Study​_A ­ broad​_­Students​.­pdf. 4. ​Daniel Golden, Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI, and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit Amer­i­ca’s Universities (New York: Henry Holt, 2017), xvii. 5. ​Golden, xvii. 6. ​Golden, 265. 7. ​Golden, 130; and Jason Koebler, “A List of the Dumb Swag the FBI Made to Promote Its Dumb Propaganda Movie,” Motherboard, November  12, 2015, https://­motherboard​ .­v ice​.­com​/­en​_­us​/­article​/­d7y8jz​/­a​-­list​-­of​-­the​-­dumb​-­swag​-­the​-­fbi​-­made​-­to​-­promote​-­its​ -­dumb​-­propaganda​-­movie. 8. ​NAFSA Health and Safety Subcommittee, “Education Abroad and the FBI’s Academic Alliance Program,” accessed April 15, 2019, https://­www​.­nafsa​.­org​/­Professional​_­Resources​



Notes to Pages 125–126

197

/­Browse​_­by​_­Interest​/­Education​_­Abroad​/­Education​_­Abroad​_­and​_­the​_­FBI%​E2%​ 80%​99s​_­Academic​_A ­ lliance​_P ­ rogram​/­. 9. ​See, for example, Southern Illinois University, Police Department, “Shriver Case: A Textbook Case of Recruitment,” https://­police​.­siu​.­edu​/­ci​/­pawns​/­textbook​.­php; Illinois State University, Study Abroad, “Safety Abroad,” https://­studyabroad​.­illinoisstate​.­edu​/­healthsafety​ /­predeparture​/­safety​/­; Kalamazoo College, Center for International Programs, “Health, Safety, and Emergency Resources,” http://­reason​.­kzoo​.e­ du​/­cip​/­parent​_­resources​/­cip​_­news​ /­health​/­; University of Pittsburgh, “Technology Guidelines and Tips for International Travel,” https://­www​.t­ echnology​.­pitt​.­edu​/­security​/­technology​-­guidelines​-­and​-­tips​-­international​ -­travel; Clemson University, “Study Abroad: Pre-­departure Orientation,” http://­media​ .­clemson​.e­ du​/­ia​/­programs​/­pre​_­departure​_­presentation​.­pdf; and UMass Lowell, “Health, Safety & Travel Preparation,” https://­www​.­uml​.­edu​/­international​-­programs​/­health​.­aspx. All websites in this note w ­ ere accessed April 2, 2019. 10. ​Golden, Spy Schools, 131–132. 11. ​Austin Ramzy, “F.B.I. Video Warns of Efforts to Recruit American Students as Spies,” Sinosphere, April  15, 2014, https://­sinosphere​.­blogs​.n­ ytimes​.­com​/­2014​/­04​/­15​/­using​-­china​ -­as​-­an​-­example​-­f​-­b​-­i-​ ­video​-­warns​-­americans​-­about​-­study​-­abroad​/­; Alex Pasternack, “The FBI Made a Spy Thriller to Remind You Not to Be a Spy,” Motherboard, April 16, 2014, https://­motherboard​.­v ice​.­com​/­en​_­us​/­article​/­g vyv8j​/­the​-­f bi​-­made​-­a​-­spy​-­thriller​-­to​ -­remind​-­you​-­not​-­to​-­be​-­a​-­spy; Emily Rauhala, “FBI Movie Warns  U.S. Students Not to Spy for China,” Time, April 16, 2014, http://­time​.­com​/­64530​/­fbi​-­movie​-­game​-­of​-­pawns​ -­china​/­; “The FBI’s Entertainment Liaison Office,” Spy Culture, accessed April 15, 2019, https://­www​.s­ pyculture​.­com​/­fbis​-­entertainment​-­liaison​-­office​/­. 12. ​Golden suggests that it is pos­si­ble that Marta Velázquez, American spy for Cuba between 1983 and the early 2000s, was first contacted by Cuban intelligence during a trip to the island sponsored by Prince­ton’s Latin American Studies program (Spy Schools, 60–61). 13. ​FBI, National Security Concerns. 14. ​FBI, Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Intelligence Note: Preventing Loss of Academic Research, June  2015, 4, https://­info​.­publicintelligence​.­net​/­FBI​-­SPIN​-­Protecting​ AcademicResearch​.­pdf. 15. ​Gregory  F. Malveaux, Look before Leaping: Risks, Liabilities, and Repair of Study Abroad in Higher Education (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), chapters 2–6. 16. ​Katherine  L. Herbig, The Expanding Spectrum of Espionage, 1947–2015, US Department of Defense, Defense Personnel and Security Research Center (PERSEREC), Technical Report 17-10, August 2017, 34. 17. ​Golden, Spy Schools, 71–72. 18. ​FBI, Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Unit, Higher Education and National Security: The Targeting of Sensitive, Proprietary and Classified Information on Campuses of Higher Education, April  2011, https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­file​-­repository​/­higher​-­education​ -­national​-­security​.­pdf​/­view. 19. ​Richard G. Powers, G-­Men: Hoover’s FBI in American Culture (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1983); Bob Herzberg, The FBI and the Movies: A History of the Bureau on Screen and b­ ehind the Scenes in Hollywood ( Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2007);

198

Notes to Pages 127–131

John Sbardellati, J. Edgar Hoover Goes to the Movies: The FBI and the Origins of Hollywood’s Cold War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012). 20. ​See Herzberg, FBI and the Movies; Powers, G-­Men; Sbardellati, J. Edgar Hoover Goes to the Movies. 21. ​Powers, G-­Men, 207–229. 22. ​Nuclear Vault, “Stay Alert, Stay Alive: The Techniques and Mechanics of Arrest [ca. 1960],” July  31, 2012, YouTube video, 22:17, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=FkM1​ WVowdmQ; WWIIPublicDomain, “FBI Training Film: Examination of Soils and Minerals, Hairs and Fibers, Toolmarks, and Tire and Shoe Impressions 1969,” February 1, 2015, YouTube video, 8:57, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=3QLOVOSAJKQ. 23. ​FBI, “Working with the FBI: A Guide for Writers, Authors, and Producers,” 2008, https://­w ww​.­f bi​.­gov​/­news​/­stories​/­2008​/­october​/­a​-­g uide​-­for​-­w riters​-­authors​-­and​ -­producers​-­1. 24. ​FBI, “Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs,” August 22, 2013 (obtained ­under the Freedom of Information Act). 25. ​See Creative Planet Network, “FBI TV,” updated February  6, 2018, http://­www​ .­creative​planetnetwork​.­com​/­news​/­news​-­articles​/­fbi​-­tv​/­380124. 26. ​See Creative Planet Network, “FBI TV”; and Kim Waggoner and Tom Christenberry, “Virtual Learning: Distance Education for Law Enforcement,” in collaboration with the FBI, October 1997, https://­www2​.­fbi​.­gov​/­publications​/­leb​/­1997​/­oct971​.­htm. 27. ​See FBI, “FBI Social Media Sites,” updated March 2019, https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­news​ /­fbi​-s­ ocial​-m ­ edia​-­sites. 28. ​FBI, “New Sit-­Up Protocol for FBI Mandatory Physical Fitness Test,” October 15, 2018, YouTube video, 1:53, https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=NYj0FX9sz-­c&t=6s; FBI, “Meet Dolce, the FBI’s First Therapy Dog,” April 27, 2012, YouTube video, 4:51, https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=SqsYSJDntMA; FBI, “Help Us Catch the Potomac River Rapist,” December 14, 2011, YouTube video, 3:10, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=zt nTmxjkiq4&t=0s&index=26&list=PL_kAiN4FbpOu-­HKICtXaD1IoMnBnMWiOF. 29. ​FBI, “Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs.” For a historical sketch of the FBI’s multipronged approach to publicity, see Dirk C. Gibson, “A Quantitative Description of FBI Public Relations,” Public Relations Review 23, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 11–30. 30. ​FBI, Public Affairs Manual, June 28, 2006, 1, https://­www​.­governmentattic​.o ­ rg /32docs​ /FBIpaManual_2006.pdf. 31. ​FBI, “Advice for U.S. College Students Abroad.” 32. ​FBI, Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs, “­Don’t Be a Pawn: Communication and Strategy Plan,” version 1.2, February 5, 2015, 2 (obtained u­ nder the Freedom of Information Act). 33. ​FBI, “Advice for U.S. College Students Abroad.” 34. ​See Rocket Media (website), accessed June 5, 2020, http://­rocket​-­media​.­wixsite​.­com​ /­rocket​-­media. 35. ​FBI, “Economic Espionage FBI Launches Nationwide Awareness Campaign,” July 23, 2015, https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­news​/­stories​/­economic​-­espionage. 36. ​William W. Hoffa, A History of U.S. Study Abroad: Beginnings to 1965. A Special Publication of Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad and The Forum on Education Abroad (Lancaster, PA: 2007), 113.



Notes to Pages 131–135

199

37. ​Talya Zemach-­Bersin, “Imperial Pedagogies: Education for American Globalism, 1898–

1950” (PhD diss., Yale University, 2015), 12. On t­hese dif­fer­ent programs, see Zemach-­ Bersin, chapters 4–6. 38. ​Zemach-­Bersin, 325. 39. ​Zemach-­Bersin, 282, 290, 291. 40. ​Liping Bu, “Educational Exchange and Cultural Diplomacy in the Cold War,” Journal of American Studies 33, no. 3 (1999): 397. 41. ​Liping Bu, Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American ­Century (Westport, CT: Praeger 2004), 9. 42. ​See Hoffa, History of U.S. Study Abroad; and John M. Keller and Maritheresa Frain, “The Impact of Geo-­Political Events, Globalization, and National Policies on Study Abroad Programming and Participation,” in A History of U.S. Study Abroad: 1965–­Pre­sent, ed. William W. Hoffa and Stephen C. DePaul (Carlisle, PA: Forum on Education Abroad, 2010), 15–53. 43. ​Margaret O’Mara, “The Uses of the Foreign Student,” Social Science History 36, no. 4 (2012): 609. 44. ​Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, Global Competence & National Needs: One Million Americans Studying Abroad (Washington, DC, 2005), vi. 45. ​NAFSA, “The Economic Imperative of a Global Education” (white paper from the NAFSA 2018 Worldview Global Workforce Development Roundtable, August  2018), https://­w ww​.­n afsa​ .­o rg​ /­s ites​ /­d efault​ /­f iles​ /­e ktron​ /­f iles​ /­u nderscore​ /­w orldview​ _­workforce​_r­ oundtable​.­pdf, 3. 46. ​For example, the David L. Boren Scholarship (est. 1991), the Language Flagship (est. 2002), Proj­ect Go (est. 2007), and the Benjamin  A. Gilman International Scholarship (est. 2000). 47. ​Keller and Frain, “Impact of Geo-­Political Events,” 37–38. 48. ​This was outlined in the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, “Global Competence & National Needs,” 6–8. 49. ​Keller and Frain, “Impact of Geo-­Political Events,” 47. 50. ​Cara Lane-­Toomey, “U.S. Government ­Factors Influencing an Expansion of Study Abroad in the M ­ iddle East/North Africa,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 24 (Fall 2014): 122. Also see Wenhao Diao and Emma Trentman, “Politicizing Study Abroad: Learning Arabic in Egypt and Mandarin in China,” L2 Journal 8, no.  2 (2016): 31–50. 51. ​Bu, “Educational Exchange,” 414. 52. ​Diao and Trentman, “Politicizing Study Abroad,” 35. 53. ​On best practices, see Lilli Engle and John Engle, “Study Abroad Levels: ­Toward a Classification of Program Types,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 9 (2003): 1–20; and Michael Woolf, “Impossible Th ­ ings before Breakfast: Myths in Education Abroad,” Journal of Studies in International Education 11, nos. 3/4 (Fall/Winter 2007): 496–509. 54. ​FBI, “The Key to US Student Safety Overseas,” March 2014, https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­file​ -­repository​/­student​-­safety​-­trifold​.­pdf​/­view. 55. ​FBI, “Key to US Student Safety Overseas.”

200

Notes to Pages 137–139

56. ​FBI, “­Don’t Be a Pawn: A Warning to Students Abroad,” April 14, 2014, https://­www​

.­fbi​.­gov​/­video​-­repository​/­newss​-d­ ont​-­be​-­a​-­pawn​-­a​-­warning​-­to​-­students​-­abroad​/­view. 57. ​On the central place of global citizenship in the field of study abroad, see Hans Schattle, “Global Citizenship in Theory and Practice,” in The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, ed. Ross Lewin (New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009), 3–20; Talya Zemach-­Bersin, “Entitled to the World: The Rhe­toric of U.S. Global Citizenship Education and Study Abroad,” in Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, ed. Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti and Lynn Mario T. M. de Souza (New York: Routledge, 2012), 87–104; Michael Woolf, “Another Mishegas: Global Citizenship,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 19 (Fall/Winter 2010): 52–60. 58. ​ Ross Lewin, “Introduction: The Quest for Global Citizenship through Study Abroad,” in Lewin, Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad, xv; and Ian Davies and Graham Pike, “Global Citizenship Education: Challenges and Possibilities,” in Lewin, Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad, 67. 59. ​Schattle, “Global Citizenship in Theory and Practice,” 10–11. 60. ​David Killick, “Seeing-­Ourselves-­in-­the-­World: Developing Global Citizenship through International Mobility and Campus Community,” Journal of Studies in International Education 16, no.  4 (2012): 373; Nadine Dolby, “Global Citizenship and Study Abroad: A Comparative Study of American and Australian Undergraduates,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 17 (Fall 2008): 53. 61. ​Rebecca Hovey and Adam Weinberg, “Global Learning and the Making of Citizen Diplomats,” in Lewin, Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad, 44. 62. ​Davies and Pike, “Global Citizenship Education,” 67. 63. ​Nadine Dolby, “Encountering the American Self: Study Abroad and National Identity,” Comparative Education Review 48, no. 2 (2004): 153. 64. ​Hovey and Weinberg, “Global Learning,” 45. 65. ​Grant H. Corwell and Eve W. Stoddard, Globalizing Knowledge: Connecting International & Intercultural Studies (Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 1999), 32. 66. ​Davies and Pike, “Global Citizenship Education,” 67. 67. ​Gal Ariely, “Globalisation and the Decline of National Identity,” Nations and Nationalism 18, no. 3 (2012): 477–478. 68. ​For example, see NAFSA se­nior fellow Francisco Marmolejo, “Global Trends and International Higher Education: A Wake Up Call,” in Trends & Insights: Internationalization in a Time of Global Disruption (NAFSA: Association of International Educators, March 2019), 8–10, https://­www​.­nafsa​.­org​/­professional​-­resources​/­research​-­and​-­trends​/­internationali​ zation​-t­ime​-­global​-­disruption; and Sanford J. Ungar, “The Study Abroad Solution: How to Open the American Mind,” Foreign Affairs, 95, no. 2 (March/April, 2016): 111–123. 69. ​David Killick, Developing the Global Student: Higher Education in an Era of Globalization (New York: Routledge, 2015), 182. 70. ​Dolby, “Encountering the American Self,” 173. 71. ​Woolf, “Another Mishegas,” 52. 72. ​Zemach-­Bersin, “Entitled to the World,” 96–97. 73. ​Herbig, Expanding Spectrum of Espionage, vi, 45.



Notes to Pages 139–147

201

74. ​Herbig, 41. 75. ​Herbig, 20 (emphasis added). 76. ​Herbig, 54. 77. ​Herbig, 154. 78. ​Herbig, 54.

Spigel, Make Room for TV: Tele­vi­sion and the ­Family Ideal in Postwar Amer­i­ca (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 36–73. 80. ​Zemach-­Bersin, Imperial Pedagogies, 22. 81. ​Zemach-­Bersin, 324. 82. ​Herbig, Expanding Spectrum of Espionage, 154. 83. ​Barbara Heron, Desire for Development: Whiteness, Gender, and the Helping Imperative (Waterloo, ON, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007), quoted in Nancy Cook, “ ‘I’m H ­ ere to Help’: Development Workers, the Politics of Benevolence and Critical Literacy,” in Andreotti and de Souza, Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, 125; David Jefferess, “Unsettling Cosmopolitanism: Global Citizenship and the Cultural Politics of Benevolence,” in Andreotti and de Souza, Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, 27. 84. ​Herbig, Expanding Spectrum of Espionage, 55. 85. ​FBI, Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Unit. Higher Education and National Security: The Targeting of Sensitive, Proprietary and Classified Information on Campuses of Higher Education. April 2011, https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­file​-­repository​/­higher​-­education​-­national​ -­security​.­pdf​/­view, 5. 86. ​Herbig, v. 87. ​ISE Bloggers, “FBI Releases Active Shooter Training Film, The Coming Storm,” National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, November  10, 2015, https://­www​.­dni​.­gov​/­index​.­php​/­ncsc​-­who​-­we​-­are​/­ncsc​ -­history​/­ncsc​-­time​-­line​-­of​-­ci​-­milestones​/­310​-­about​/­organization​/­information​-­sharing​ -­environment​/­i se​-­blog​/­2 467​-­f bi​-­releases​-­active​-­shooter​-­training​-­f ilm​-­the​-­coming​ -­storm. The Coming Storm can be found ­here: St. Thomas University, “The Coming Storm— an FBI Production,” February 15, 2018, YouTube video, 41:35, https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?v­ =9jgS7jBXZU4. 88. ​FBI, “Quick Look: 250 Active Shooter Incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2017,” accessed April 17, 2019, https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­about​/­partnerships​/­office​-­of​-­partner​ -­engagement​/­active​-­shooter​-­incidents​-­graphics. 89. ​As I write this note, news is currently unfolding about the campus shooting that killed two students at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte on May 1, 2019. See Faith Karimi, “ ‘ Why UNC Charlotte? Why My Classroom?’ All-­Too-­Familiar Shooting Scene Plays Out on Last Day of Classes,” CNN, May 1, 2019, https://­www​.­cnn​.­com​/­2019​ /­05​/0­ 1​/­us​/u­ niversity​-­of​-­north​-­carolina​-­charlotte​-­shooting​-­wednesday​/­index​.­html. 79. ​Lynn

Chapter 6  Study Abroad and the Female Traveler in the “Amanda Knoxudramas” 1. ​See Atalanta Goulandris and Eugene McLaughlin, “What’s in a Name? The UK News-

papers’ Fabrication and Commodification of Foxy Knoxy,” in Transmedia Crime Stories:

202

Notes to Pages 148–149

The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Globalised Media Sphere, ed. Lieve Gies and Maria Bortoluzzi, Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 17–46; and Stevie Simkin, “Scarlet Letters from Perugia: ‘Slut-­ Shaming’ and the Media Repre­sen­ta­tions of Amanda Knox,” in Gies and Bortoluzzi, Transmedia Crime Stories, 47–68. 2. ​Colleen Barry, “Eu­rope Court ­Orders Italy to Pay Damages to Amanda Knox,” ABC News, January 24, 2019, 9:49 a.m. EST, https://­abcnews​.­go​.­com​/­International​/­wireStory​ /­european​-­court​-­rule​-­amanda​-­knox​-­mistreatment​-­case​-­60590730. 3. ​Sophie Egan, “Ju­nior Fear Abroad,” New York Times, December 5, 2007, http://­www​ .­nytimes​.c­ om​/­2007​/­12​/­05​/­opinion​/­05egan​.­html. 4. ​Alani Vargas, “Watching ‘Amanda Knox’ While Studying Abroad in Italy,” Her Campus, October  7, 2016, https://­www​.­hercampus​.­com​/­entertainment​/­watching​-­amanda​ -­knox​-­while​-s­ tudying​-­abroad​-­italy. 5. ​Jennifer Planeta, “Studying Abroad in College, Post Amanda Knox,” Patch, October 10, 2011, https://­patch​.­com​/­washington​/­shoreline​/­studying​-­abroad​-­in​-­college​-­post​-­amanda​ -­knox. 6. ​Perry ­Binder, “7 ­Things the Amanda Knox Case Taught Us about Studying Abroad,” Huffington Post, October 9, 2011, 4:32 p.m. EST, updated December 9, 2011, http://­www​ .­huffingtonpost​.­com​/­perry​-­binder​/­amanda​-­knox​-­study​-­abroad​_­b​_­1002200​.­html. Also see Missy Gluckmann, “The Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher Study Abroad Case: A Murder in Italy and the Impact on Study Abroad Internationally,” Melibee Global, December 5, 2009, https://­melibeeglobal​.­com​/­blog​/­2009​/­12​/­the​-­amanda​-­knoxmeredith​ -­k ercher​ -­s tudy​ -­a broad​ -­c ase​ -­a​ -­m urder​ -­i n​ -­i taly​ -­a nd​ -­t he​ -­i mpact​ -­o n​ -­s tudy​ -­a broad​ -­internationally​/­; and Sandra Alves, “Lessons from the Amanda Knox Arrest,” Make Your Mark Indelible, September  27, 2011, http://­indelibleinternational​.­com​/­index​.­php​?­pc​ =­justArticle&ora​=­E0​_­70130&so​=­home. 7. ​Barbie Latza Nadeau, “Amanda Knox Trial: Perugia, a Party Scene,” Daily Beast, March 22, 2010, 5:46 a.m. EST, http://­www​.­thedailybeast​.c­ om​/­amanda​-­knox​-­trial​-­perugia​ -­a​-­party​-­scene; Jennifer Guay, “4 Stories of Study Abroad Gone Wrong,” USA ­Today, May  3, 2013, 3:25 p.m. EST, https://­www​.­usatoday​.c­ om​/­story​/­news​/­nation​/­2013​/­05​/­03​ /­study​-­abroad​-­gone​-­wrong​/­2133643​/­. 8. ​Sarah Annunziato, “The Amanda Knox Case: The Repre­sen­ta­tion of Italy in American Media Coverage,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Tele­vi­sion 31, no. 1 (March 2011): 61. 9. ​James Q. Whitman, “Presumption of Innocence or Presumption of Mercy? Weighing Two Western Modes of Justice,” Texas Law Review 94, no. 5 (2016): 933–993. Also see Riccardo Montana, “Prosecution in Action in the Italian Criminal Justice System: The Amanda Knox Case,” in Gies and Bortoluzzi, Transmedia Crime Stories, 167–188. 10. ​Yvonne Jewkes, “Foreword: The Tragicomedy of Perugia: Power and Prejudice, Visibility and Invisibility in the Making of a Transnational, Postmodern Media Story,” in Gies and Bortoluzzi, Transmedia Crime Stories, xii. 11. ​Ellen Nerenberg, Murder Made in Italy: Hom­ic­ ide, Media, and Con­temporary Italian Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012), 257. 12. ​Denise Scannell Guida, “Amanda Knox and Bella Figura,” Italian Americana 31, no. 2 (Summer 2013): 148–167.



Notes to Pages 150–154

203

13. ​Gary D. Rhodes and John Parris Springer, introduction to Docufictions: Essays on the

Intersection of Documentary Fictional Filmmaking, ed. Gary  D. Rhodes and John Parris Springer ( Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006), 6. 14. ​Steven N. Lipkin, Real Emotional Logic: Film and Tele­vi­sion Docudrama as Persuasive Practice (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002), ix. 15. ​On the history and predominance of w ­ omen in study abroad, see Joan Elias Gore, Dominant Beliefs and Alternative Voices: Discourse, Belief, and Gender in American Study Abroad, Studies in Higher Education (New York: Routledge, 2005); and Whitney Walton, Internationalism, National Identities, and Study Abroad: France and the United States, 1890–1970 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009). For current demographic statistics, see IIE: The Power of International Education, U.S. Study Abroad, Open Doors Report, 2018, https://­www​.­iie​.o­ rg​/­en​/­Research​-­and​-­Insights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Data​/­US​ -­Study​-­Abroad. 16. ​Steven N. Lipkin, Derek Paget, and Jane Roscoe, “Docudrama and Mock-­Documentary: Defining Terms, Proposing Canons,” in Rhodes and Springer, Docufictions, 14. 17. ​Jane Feuer, Seeing Through the Eighties: Tele­vi­sion and Reaganism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995), 19; and Rod Carveth, “Amy Fisher and the Ethics of ‘Headline’ Docudramas,” Journal of Popu­lar Film and Tele­vi­sion 21, no. 3 (1993): 121–127. 18. ​Lipkin, Real Emotional Logic, 66. 19. ​Lipkin, 5. 20. ​Lipkin, 56. 21. ​Lipkin, 75. 22. ​Feuer, Seeing Through the Eighties, 24. 23. ​Staci Stutsman, “ ‘ Your Life. Your Time’: Addressing a Fractured Audience through Docudrama,” in The Lifetime Network: Essays on ‘Tele­vi­sion for ­Women’ in the 21st ­Century, ed. Emily L. Newman and Emily Witsell ( Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2016), 139. 24. ​Lipkin, Paget, and Roscoe, “Docudrama and Mock-­Documentary,” 15. 25. ​Kristi Siegel, “­Women’s Travel and the Rhe­toric of Peril: It Is Suicide to Be Abroad,” in Gender, Genre, and Identity in W ­ omen’s Travel Writing, ed. Kristi Siegel (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 57. 26. ​Sidonie Smith, Moving Lives: 20th-­Century W ­ omen’s Travel Writing (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), 10–11. 27. ​Karen R. Lawrence, Penelope Voyages: W ­ omen and Travel in the British Literary Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994), 1. 28. ​Meaghan Morris, “At the Henry Parkes Motel,” Cultural Studies 2 ( January 1988): 12. 29. ​Smith, Moving Lives, x. 30. ​ Susan Frohlick, Ana Dragojlovic, and Adriana Piscitelli, “Introduction: Foreign Travel, Transnational Sex, and Transformations of Heterosexualities,” Gender, Place & Culture 23, no. 2 (2016): 235. 31. ​Rebecca Solnit, Wanderlust: A History of Walking (New York: Penguin, 2001), 235–236. 32. ​Solnit, 235–236; and Smith, Moving Lives, 11, 18. 33. ​Solnit, Wanderlust, 233–234. 34. ​Janet Woolf, “On the Road Again: Meta­phors of Travel in Cultural Criticism,” Cultural Studies 7, no. 2 (May 1993): 234.

204

Notes to Pages 154–165

35. ​Fiona Jordan and Cara Aitchison, “Tourism and the Sexualisation of the Gaze: Solo

Female Tourists’ Experiences of Gendered Power, Surveillance and Embodiment,” Leisure Studies 27, no. 3 (2008): 337–339. 36. ​Jordan and Aitchison, 343. 37. ​Kathryn Tyler, “­Don’t Fence Her In,” HRMagazine 46, no. 3 (March 2001): 69–77. 38. ​Lynne Kirby, Parallel Tracks: The Railroad and S ­ ilent Cinema (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), 82–85; Smith, Moving Lives, 123. 39. ​Andrea Todd, “Destination: Danger—­a Must-­Read Report If You Love to Travel,” Cosmopolitan, August 2000, 202. 40. ​Liz Welch, “The New Travel Dangers,” Cosmopolitan, December 2005, 135, 137. 41. ​Feuer, Seeing Through the Eighties, 24. 42. ​ Guilt, season 1, episode 5, “The Eye of the Needle,” directed by Elizabeth Allen Rosenbaum, written by Cathryn Price and Nichole Millard, featuring Daisy Head and Emily Tremaine, aired July 18, 2019, on Freeform. 43. ​See John Urry and Jonas Larsen, The Tourist Gaze 3.0 (London: Sage Publications, 2011), 15. 44. ​Jordan and Aitchison, “Tourism and the Sexualisation of the Gaze,” 334. 45. ​See, for example, Erica  A. Morin, “ ‘No Vacation for M ­ other’: Traditional Gender Roles in Outdoor Travel Lit­er­a­tures, 1940–1965,” ­Women’s Studies 41 (2012): 436–456; Jordan and Aitchison, “Tourism and the Sexualisation of the Gaze,” 329–349; and Tim Cresswell and Tanu Priya Uteng, “Gendered Mobilities: ­Towards an Holistic Understanding,” in Gendered Mobilities, ed. Tanu Priya Uteng and Tim Cresswell (London: Routledge, 2016), 1–12. 46. ​Anna R. Cooper “Colonizing Eu­rope: Widescreen Aesthetics in the 1950s’ American Travel Film,” Transnational Cinemas 7, no. 1 (2016): 31. 47. ​For example, David Lean, Summertime (Venice, Italy: Lopert Films, 1955); Douglas Sirk, dir., Interlude (Bavaria, Germany: Universal International Pictures, 1957); Jose Quintéro, The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (Louis De Rochemont Associates, 1961); Guy Green, dir., Light in the Piazza (Culver City, CA : MGM, 1962). For the typical formula of ­these films, see Robert R. Shandley, Runaway Romances: Hollywood’s Postwar Tour of Eu­rope (Philadelphia: ­Temple University Press, 2009), xiii–­x xv. 48. ​Kendra Marston, “The World Is Her Oyster: Negotiating Con­temporary White Womanhood in Hollywood’s Tourist Spaces,” Cinema Journal 55, no. 4 (Fall 2016): 7. 49. ​ Diane Negra, “Romance and/as Tourism Heritage Whiteness and the (Inter) national Imaginary in the New W ­ oman’s Film,” in Keyframes: Popu­lar Cinema and Cultural Studies, ed. Matthew Tinkcom and Amy Villarejo (London: Routledge, 2001), 93. 50. ​Marston, “World Is Her Oyster,” 5. 51. ​This character is based on the Newsweek and Daily Beast journalist Barbie Latza Nadeau, whose book Angel Face: The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox (Beast Books, 2010) was the inspiration for Winterbottom’s film. 52. ​Nancy Barbour, “Global Citizen, Global Consumer: Study Abroad, Neoliberal Convergence, and the Eat, Pray, Love Phenomenon” (master’s thesis, Oregon State University, 2012), 4. 53. ​Rodanthi Tzanelli, The Cinematic Tourist: Explorations in Globalization, Culture and Re­sis­tance (London: Routledge, 2010), 3.



Notes to Pages 165–168

205

54. ​Quoted in Elizabeth Redden, “­Women Abroad and Men at Home,” Inside Higher Ed,

December  4, 2008, https://­www​.­insidehighered​.­com​/­news​/­2008​/­12​/­04​/­women​-­abroad​ -­and​-­men​-­home. Also see David C. Lungren and Donald J. Rudawsky, “Female and Male College Students’ Responses to Negative Feedback from Parents and Peers,” Sex Roles 39 (1998): 409–429, https://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1023​/­A :1018823126219; and Mark  H. Salisbury, Michael B. Paulsen, Ernest T. Pascarella, “To See the World or Stay at Home: Applying an Integrated Student Choice Model to Explore the Gender Gap in the Intent to Study Abroad,” Research in Higher Education 51 (2010): 633. 55. ​Jody Jessup-­Anger, “Gender Observations and Study Abroad: How Students Reconcile Cross-­Cultural Differences Related to Gender,” Journal of College Student Development 49, no. 4 ( July 2008): 368–369. 56. ​Walton, Internationalism, 7. 57. ​Walton, 90. 58. ​Walton, 171–193. 59. ​Gore, Dominant Beliefs, 35–36, 41. 60. ​Gore, 62–78, 31. 61. ​Gore, 20. 62. ​Redden, “­Women Abroad and Men at Home.” 63. ​Roblyn Rawlins, “ ‘ ­W hether I’m an American or Not, I’m Not ­Here So You Can Hit on Me’: Public Harassment in the Experience of U.S. W ­ omen Studying Abroad,” ­Women’s Studies 41 (2012): 477; and Matthew Kimble, William F. Flack Jr., and Emily Burbridge, “Study Abroad Increases Risk for Sexual Assault in Female Undergraduates: A Preliminary Report,” Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 5, no. 5 (2013): 426–430. 64. ​See Brittany  K. Bull, “Raped Abroad: Extraterritorial Application of Title IX for American University Students Sexually Assaulted While Studying Abroad,” Northwestern University Law Review 111, no. 2 (2017): 439–482. 65. ​Vincent  R. Johnson, “Americans Abroad: International Educational Programs and Tort Liability,” Journal of College and University Law 32, no. 2 (2006): 311. 66. ​Gregory  F. Malveaux, Look before Leaping: Risks, Liabilities, and Repair of Study Abroad in Higher Education (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 20. 67. ​See Malveaux, Look before Leaping, 35, 60; and Bull, “Raped Abroad,” 476–481.

BIBLIOGR APHY

ACIS. “Video Contest.” Accessed April 23, 2018. https://­www​.­acis​.c­ om​/­students​/­contest​ -­video. Afi, Elizabeth. “Vlog #1: A Day in My Life Studying Abroad in France.” May 29, 2018. YouTube video, 20:59. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=NMMwz38sfOg&list=PLW pY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=20&t=34s. AIFS. “AIFS Study Abroad—­Capture the Culture Winner—­Category: ­Grand Prize.” December  6, 2016. YouTube video, 4:03. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=NI3​ BO2​Y1​WRc&t=18s. —­—­—. “AIFS Study Abroad—­Capture the Culture Winner—­Category: Tradition . . . ​ Tradition!” June  8, 2016. YouTube video, 0:30. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​ ?­v=p0p​_hrlgPnA&list=PLOhSBVJu9bejwwOGHYzZCx_ORBxgB7O9O&index=7. AIFS Study Abroad. “Capture the Culture Video Contest.” June  12, 2017. https://­blog​ .­aifsabroad​.­com​/­2017​/­06​/­12​/­aifs​-­capture​-c­ ulture​-­video​-­contest​-­2017​/­. Akemi, Ashley. “Study Abroad in Japan! | Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, Japan.” July 3, 2017. YouTube video, 5:58. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=E4eT1PZ5gwg&list= PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=35. Andrejevic, Mark. Real­ity TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Andrejevic, Mark, and Dean Colby. “Racism and Real­ity TV: The Case of MTV’s Road Rules.” In How Real Is Real­ity TV? Essays on Repre­sen­ta­tion and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffery, 195–211. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, Jefferson, 2006. Annenberg Learner: Teacher Resources/Foreign Language. French in Action. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://­www​.­learner​.­org​/­resources​/­series83​.­html. Annunziato, Sarah. “The Amanda Knox Case: The Repre­sen­ta­tion of Italy in American Media Coverage.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Tele­vi­sion 31, no. 1 (March 2011): 61–78. Ariely, Gal. “Globalisation and the Decline of National Identity.” Nations and Nationalism 18, no. 3 (2012): 461–482. AT&T SHAPE. “AT&T Film Awards.” Accessed April  16, 2018. https://­shape​.­att​.­com​ /­film​-a­ wards. Bailiee, Imani. “Study Abroad Barcelona Vlog 3: Met Someone Black, Pre-­drinks? and Shopping.” October 2, 2018. YouTube video, 15:53. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​ ?­v=isOY3pnjJd4&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=9. Barbour, Nancy. “Global Citizen, Global Consumer: Study Abroad, Neoliberal Convergence, and the Eat, Pray, Love Phenomenon.” Master’s thesis, Oregon State University, 2012. Barron, Laignee. “French Art School Apologizes for Doctored Photo That Added Black ­Faces.” Time, September 14, 2018. https://­time​.c­ om​/­5396060​/­france​-­art​-­school​-­black​ -­faces​-­photo​/­. 207

208

Bibliography

Barry, Colleen. “Eu­rope Court ­Orders Italy to Pay Damages to Amanda Knox.” ABC News, January  24, 2019. https://­abcnews​.­go​.c­ om​/­International​/­wireStory​/­european​-­court​ -­rule​-­amanda​-­knox​-­mistreatment​-­case​-­60590730. Beauvais, Gabby. “I’m the Only Black Person in the Czech Republic?? | Study Abroad Travel Vlog.” December  16, 2018. YouTube video, 8:52. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­w atch​ ?­v =lDoGZIrMmas&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK​ -­A&index=27. Beckman, Karen. Crash: Cinema and the Politics of Speed and Stasis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010. Beeextremist. “Young, Black and Abroad.” March 21, 2011. YouTube video, 2:34. https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=0l4Fb1GrcEE&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J​ _zX0ymK-­A&index=84. BeksBackwardBeauty. “Host F ­ amily House Tour.” July  15, 2013. YouTube video, 4:38. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=I1kQKBgcftg&index=38&list=PLWpY8EHJuZ ozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&t=0s. Belton, John. Widescreen Cinema. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Benelli, Dana. “Hollywood and the Attractions of the Travelogue.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 177–194. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Berg, Daria. “A New Spectacle in China’s Mediasphere: A Cultural Reading of a Web-­ Based Real­ity Show from Shanghai.” China Quarterly 205 (2011): 133–151. Biressi, Anita, and Heather Nunn. Real­ity TV: Realism and Revelation. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Bishop, Sarah C. “The Rhe­toric of Study Abroad: Perpetuating Expectations and Results through Technological Enframing.” Journal of Studies in International Education 17, no. 4 (2013): 398–413. Bishop, Sophie. “Anxiety, Panic and Self-­Optimization: Inequalities and the YouTube Algorithm.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 24, no. 1 (2018): 69–84. Bloom, Peter  J. “Trans-­Saharan Automotive Cinema: Citroen-­, Renault-­, and Peugeot-­ Sponsored Documentary Interwar Crossing Films.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 139–156. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Bow, Leslie. “Transracial/Transgender: Analogies of Difference in Mai’s Amer­i­ca.” Signs: Journal of ­Women in Culture and Society 35, no. 1 (Autumn 2009): 75–103. Brown, Simone. Dark ­Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015. Bruzzi, Stella. New Documentary. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2006. Bu, Liping. “Educational Exchange and Cultural Diplomacy in the Cold War.” Journal of American Studies 33, no. 3 (1999): 393–415. —­—— ­ . Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American ­Century. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Bull, Brittany K. “Raped Abroad: Extraterritorial Application of Title IX for American University Students Sexually Assaulted While Studying Abroad.” Northwestern University Law Review 111, no. 2 (2017): 439–482. Burgess, Jean, and Joshua Green. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2009.

Bibliography 209 Byerly, Alison. Are We Th ­ ere Yet? Virtual Travel and Victorian Realism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013. Carveth, Rod. “Amy Fisher and the Ethics of ‘Headline’ Docudramas.” Journal of Popu­lar Film and Tele­vi­sion 21, no. 3 (1993): 121–127. CEA. “Study Abroad Video Contest.” February 1, 2008. http://­www​.­ceastudyabroadblog​ .­com​/­​?­p​=­1247. Chalfen, Richard. Snapshot Versions of Life. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Press, 1987. Chandra, Sarika. Dislocalism: The Crisis of Globalization and the Remobilizing of Americanism. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2011. Charmaraman, Linda, Bernice Huiying Chan, T ­ emple Price, and Amanda Richer. “­Women of Color Cultivating Virtual Social Capital: Surviving and Thriving.” In ­Women of Color and Social Media Multitasking: Blogs, Timelines, Feeds, and Community, edited by Keisha Edwards Tassie and Sonja M. Brown Givens, 1–19. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015. Chouliaraki, Lilie. “The Media as Moral Education: Mediation and Action.” Media, Culture & Society 30, no. 6 (2008): 831–852. ChrisLuvs HongKong. “Black in Hong Kong Vlog Ep. 1! Study Abroad in Hong Kong!” March 26, 2016. YouTube video, 13:54. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=Cbw4BP EsQuk&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=36. CIEE (Council on International Exchange). Black Students and Overseas Programs: Broadening the Base of Participation. New York: Council on International Educational Exchange, 1991. —­—­—. “CIEE Annual Conference: Austin November 8–11, 2017: Born Digital: Embracing Technology to Enhance International Education,” accessed April 16, 2018. http://­ globaleducationconference​.­ciee​.­org​/­downloads​/­austin​/­Austin​-­Program​.­pdf. CIEE Study Abroad. “A Study Abroad Homestay in Morocco.” March 30, 2012. YouTube video, 2:54. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=PJvW91r_TYs. Cision PR Newswire. “Foot Locker, Inc. and ASICS Amer­ic­ a Kick Off 2016 ‘Real Lives. Real Runners’ Campaign.” July 21, 2016. https://­www​.­prnewswire​.­com​/­news​-­releases​ /­foot​-­locker​ -­and​-­asics​-­america​-­k ick​ -­off​ -­2016​ -­real​ -­l ives​-­real​-­r unners​-­campaign​ -­300302055​.­html. —­—­—. “Porsche Selects Ten Aspiring Filmmakers to Participate in an ‘Everyday’ Film Contest.” September  12, 2011. https://­www​.­prnewswire​.­com​/­news​-­releases​/­porsche​-s­ elects​ -­ten​-­aspiring​-fi­ lmmakers​-­to​-­participate​-­in​-­an​-­everyday​-­film​-­contest​-­129666943​.­html. Clander. “#72 Study Abroad.” Stuff White P ­ eople Like (blog). February 22, 2008. https://­ stuffwhitepeoplelike​.­com​/­2008​/­02​/­22​/­72​-s­ tudy​-­abroad​/­. Clemson University. “Study Abroad: Pre-­departure Orientation.” Accessed April 2, 2019. http://­media​.­clemson​.­edu​/­ia​/­programs​/­pre​_­departure​_­presentation​.­pdf. Clissold, Bradley D. “Candid Camera and the Origins of Real­ity TV: Contextualizing a Historical Pre­ce­dent.” In Understanding Real­ity Tele­vi­sion, edited by Sue Holmes and Deborah Jermyn, 33–53. London: Routledge, 2004. Cohan, Lizzie. “The Best Foreign Films to Watch before You Study Abroad.” New York Film Acad­emy Student Resources. March  10, 2017. https://­www​.­nyfa​.­edu​/­student​ -­resources​/­the​-­best​-­foreign​-­films​-­to​-­watch​-­before​-­you​-­study​-­abroad​/­.

210

Bibliography

Coleman, James A., and Tony Chafer. “Study Abroad and the Internet: Physical and Virtual Context in an Era of Expanding Telecommunications.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 19, no. 1 (2015): 151–168. Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. Global Competence & National Needs: One Million Americans Studying Abroad (Washington, DC, 2005). Connecting Our World. “What We Stand For.” Accessed April  23, 2018. https://­www​ .­connectingourworld​.­org​/­what​-­we​-s­ tand​-­for. Cook, Nancy. “ ‘I’m H ­ ere to Help’: Development Workers, the Politics of Benevolence and Critical Literacy.” In Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, edited by Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti and Lynn Mario T. M. de Souza, 124–139. New York: Routledge, 2012. Cooper, Anna  R. “Colonizing Eu­rope: Widescreen Aesthetics in the 1950s’ American Travel Film.” Transnational Cinemas 7, no. 1 (2016): 21–33. Corner, John. “Form and Content in Documentary Study.” In The Tele­vi­sion Genre Book, 3rd ed., edited by Glen Creeber, 147. London: British Film Institute, 2015. —­—­—. “Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions.” Tele­vi­sion & New Media 3, no. 3 (August 2002): 255–269. Corwell, Grant H., and Eve W. Stoddard. Globalizing Knowledge: Connecting International & Intercultural Studies. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 1999. Couldry, Nick. Listening beyond the Echoes: Media, Ethics and Agency in an Uncertain World. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2006. —­—­—. “Making Populations Appear.” In The Politics of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion: Global Perspectives, edited by Marwan M. Kraidy and Katherine Sender, 194–206. New York: Routledge, 2011. Crawshaw, Carol, and John Urry. “Tourism and the Photographic Eye.” In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, edited by Chris Rojek and John Urry, 176– 195. New York: Routledge, 1997. Creative Planet Network. “FBI TV.” Updated February  6, 2018. http://­www​.­creative​ planet​network​.­com​/­news​/­news​-­articles​/­fbi​-­tv​/­380124. Creeber, Glen. “It’s Not TV, It’s Online Drama: The Return of the Intimate Screen.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 14, no. 6 (2011): 591–606. Cresswell, Tim, and Tanu Priya Uteng. “Gendered Mobilities: ­Towards an Holistic Understanding.” In Gendered Mobilities, edited by Tanu Priya Uteng and Tim Cresswell, 1–12. London: Routledge, 2016. Crossing Borders Education. “About: Our Mission and Objectives.” Accessed October 12, 2018. http://­crossingborders​.­education​/­about​/­. —­—­—. “Partnerships.” Accessed October  19, 2018. https://­crossingborders​.­education​ /­about​/p­ artnerships. Danada11. “My Homestay in Toronto City.” July 28, 2007. YouTube video, 2:50. https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=Atjm7qK_xzY. David. “Tour of Host ­Family’s Home.” August 26, 2012. YouTube video, 10:54. https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=qE17xS36IWI. Davies, Ian, and Graham Pike. “Global Citizenship Education: Challenges and Possibilities.” In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and

Bibliography 211 the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by Ross Lewin, 61–77. New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009. de Klerk, Nico. “Dream-­Work: Pan Am’s New Horizons in Holland.” In Films That Sell: Moving Pictures and Advertising, edited by Bo Florin, Nico de Klerk, and Patrick Vonderau, 131–144. London: BFI/Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. —­—­—. “Home Away from Home: Private Films from the Dutch East Indies.” In Mining the Home Movie: Excavations in Histories and Memories, edited by Karen L. Ishizuka and Patricia R. Zimmermann, 148–162. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Deardorff, Darla K. “Understanding the Challenges of Assessing Global Citizenship.” In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by Ross Lewin, 348–349. New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009. Deery, June. Real­ity TV. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2015. Depart Smart. “Media Inquiries.” Accessed April 7, 2019. http://­www​.­clearcausefoundation​ .­org​/­media​-­inquiries​/­. Deuze, Mark. “Convergence Culture and Media Work.” In Media Industries: History, Theory, Method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 144–156. Chichester, UK: Wiley-­ Blackwell, 2009. Diao, Wenhao, Barbara Freed, and Leigh Smith. “Confirmed Beliefs or False Assumptions? A Study of Home Stay Experiences in the French Study Abroad Context.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 21 (Fall 2011): 109–142. Diao, Wenhao, and Emma Trentman. “Politicizing Study Abroad: Learning Arabic in Egypt and Mandarin in China.” L2 Journal 8, no. 2 (2016): 31–50. Dillette, Alana K., Stefanie Benjamin, and Chelsea Carpenter. “Tweeting the Black Travel Experience: Social Media Counternarrative Stories as Innovative Insight on #TravelingWhileBlack.” Journal of Travel Research 58, no. 8 (2018): 1357–1372. DIS-­Study Abroad. “Live in a DIS Homestay.” February 14, 2014. YouTube video, 5:30. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=aBHkkW9RKVw&t=1s. Diversity Abroad (website). Accessed July 10, 2019. https://­www​.­diversitynetwork​.­org. Diversity Abroad. “Tips for Traveling in China as a Black Person.” November  18, 2017. https://­www​.­diversityabroad​.­com​/­articles​/­tips​-­traveling​-­china​-­black​-­person. Doerr, Neriko Musha. “Study Abroad as ‘Adventure’: Globalist Construction of Host–­ Home Hierarchy and Governed Adventurer Subjects.” Critical Discourse Studies 9, no. 3 (2012): 257–268. Dolby, Nadine. “Encountering the American Self: Study Abroad and National Identity.” Comparative Education Review 48, no. 2 (2004): 150–173. —­—­—. “Global Citizenship and Study Abroad: A Comparative Study of American and Australian Undergraduates.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 17 (Fall 2008): 51–67. Donnie C. “Black in Germany: What I Noticed. . . .” July 25, 2018. YouTube video, 15:52. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=w9gscNwrros&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5G FtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=22. Dorobantu, Sinziana, Witold  J. Henisz, and Lite Nartey. “Not All Sparks Light a Fire: Stakeholder and Shareholder Reactions to Critical Events in Contested Markets.” Administrative Science Quarterly 62, no. 3 (2017): 561–597.

212

Bibliography

Douglas, Mary. “The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space.” Social Research 58, no.1 (Spring 1991): 287–307. Dovey, Jon. Freakshow: First Person Media and Faculty Tele­vi­sion. London: Pluto Press, 2000. Dower, Nigel. An Introduction to Global Citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003. Durham, Carolyn A. “At the Crossroads of Gender and Culture: Where Feminism and Sexism Intersect.” Modern Language Journal 79, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 153–165. Edwards, Leigh  H. The Triumph of Real­ity TV: The Revolution in American Tele­vi­sion. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2013. Elfont, Harry, and Deborah Kaplan, dir. ­Can’t Hardly Wait. Featuring Jennifer Love Hewitt. Culver City, CA: Columbia Pictures, 1998. Elliot-­Jones, David, Louis Dai, and Lachlan McLeod, dir. Con­ve­nient Education. Melbourne: Choco­late Liberation Front, 2012.Engle, John, and Lilli Engle. “Neither International nor Educative: Study Abroad in the Time of Globalization.” In Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical Approaches to International Education in the Age of Cyberculture, edited by Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart, 25–40. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2002. —­—­—. “Study Abroad Levels: ­Toward a Classification of Program Types.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 9 (2003): 1–20. Engle, Lilli, and John Engle. “Beyond Immersion: The American University Center of Provence Experiment in Holistic Intervention,” in Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning, What Th ­ ey’re Not, and What We Can Do About It, edited by Michael Vande Berg, R.  Michael Paige, and Kris Hemming Lou, 284–307. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2012. En­glish, James F. The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Faw, Larissa. “Land Rover Makes ‘Uncharted Discoveries.’ ” Media Post. June  9, 2017. https://­w ww​.­m ediapost​ .­c om​ /­p ublications​ /­a rticle​ /­302621​ /­l and​ -­rover​ -­m akes​ -­uncharted​-­discoveries​.­html. FBI. “Advice for U.S. College Students Abroad: Be Aware of Foreign Intelligence Threat.” April  14, 2014. https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­news​/­stories​/­advice​-­for​-­us​-­college​-­students​ -­abroad. —­—— ­ . Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Intelligence Note: Preventing Loss of Academic Research. June  2015. https://­info​.­publicintelligence​.­net​/­FBI​-S­ PIN​-­Protecting​ AcademicResearch​.­pdf. —­—­—. “­Don’t Be a Pawn: A Warning to Students Abroad.” April 14, 2014. https://­www​ .­fbi​.g­ ov​/­video​-­repository​/­newss​-­dont​-b­ e​-­a​-­pawn​-­a-​ ­warning​-­to​-­students​-­abroad​/­view. —­—­—. “Economic Espionage FBI Launches Nationwide Awareness Campaign.” July 23, 2015. https://­www​.­fbi​.g­ ov​/­news​/­stories​/­economic​-­espionage. —­—­—. “FBI Social Media Sites.” Updated March 2019. https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­news​/­fbi​ -­social​-­media​-­sites. —­—­—. “Help Us Catch the Potomac River Rapist.” December 14, 2011. YouTube video, 3:10. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=ztnTmxjkiq4&t = ​ 0s&index​=26&list​=PL​ _kAiN4FbpOu​-­HKICtXaD1IoMnBnMWiOF. —­—­—. “Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs.” August 22, 2013. Obtained ­under the Freedom of Information Act.

Bibliography 213 —­—­—. “The Key to US Student Safety Overseas.” March 2014. https://­www​.fb ­ i​.­gov​/­file​ -­repository​/­student​-­safety​-­trifold​.­pdf​/­view. —­—­—. “Meet Dolce, the FBI’s First Therapy Dog.” April 27, 2012. YouTube video, 4:51. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=SqsYSJDntMA. —­—— ­ . National Security Concerns for Study Abroad Students. February 26, 2016. https://­ www​.­messiah​.­edu​/­download​/­downloads​/­id​/­967​/­National​_­Security​_­Concerns​_­for​ _­Study​_A ­ broad​_­Students​.­pdf. —­—­—. “New Sit-­Up Protocol for FBI Mandatory Physical Fitness Test.” October  15, 2018. YouTube video, 1:53. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=NYj0FX9sz-­c&t=6s —­—— ­ . Public Affairs Manual. June 28, 2006. https://­www​.­governmentattic​.­org/32docs​ /FBIpaManual_2006.pdf. —­—­—. “Quick Look: 250 Active Shooter Incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2017.” Accessed April  17, 2019. https://­www​.fb ­ i​.­gov​/­about​/­partnerships​/­office​-­of​ -­partner​-­engagement​/­active​-­shooter​-­incidents​-­graphics. —­—­—. “Working with the FBI: A Guide for Writers, Authors, and Producers.” 2008. https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­news​/­stories​/­2008​/­october​/­a​-­guide​-­for​-­writers​-­authors​-­and​ -­producers​-­1. FBI, Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Unit. Higher Education and National Security: The Targeting of Sensitive, Proprietary and Classified Information on Campuses of Higher Education. April 2011, 1–12. https://­www​.­fbi​.­gov​/­file​-r­ epository​/­higher​-­education​ -­national​-­security​.­pdf​/­viepw. FBI, Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs. “­Don’t Be a Pawn: Communication and Strategy Plan.” Version 1.2. February 5, 2015. Obtained ­under the Freedom of Information Act. FBI Office of Public Affairs. “Media Relations at FBIHQ and in Field Offices Policy Guide.” October 13, 2015. Obtained ­under the Freedom of Information Act. Feith, Ashley. “Student Diplomat 2012 Video Contest.” November 5, 2012. YouTube video, 2:59. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=RR18kQ7tLR0. Feliu, Tom, dir. Game of Pawns: The Glenn Duffie Shriver Story. Written by Sean Paul Murphy. Washington, DC: USA: FBI Counterintelligence Division, 2014. Fernandez, Christina. “Tour of My Japa­nese Host F ­ amily’s House.” July 2, 2012. YouTube video, 7:41. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=AhLsQoHMSc0&t=356s. Feuer, Jane. Seeing Through the Eighties: Tele­vi­sion and Reaganism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995. Ficarra, Julie  M. “Curating Cartographies of Knowledge: Reading Institutional Study Abroad Portfolio as Text.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29, no. 1 (April 2017): 1–14. FirexEnigma. “Amanda in Japan: My Host ­Family’s House.” April 25, 2013. YouTube video, 5:31. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=vYIL66XulDk&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozqV hIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index=33&t=0s. Fisher, Max, and Amanda Taub. “On YouTube’s Visual Playground, an Open Gate for Pedophiles.” New York Times, June  3, 2019. https://­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2019​/­06​/­03​ /­world​/a­ mericas​/­youtube​-p­ edophiles​.­html. Freeman, R. Edward, Andrew C. Wicks, and Bidhan Parmar. “Stakeholder Theory and ‘The Corporate Objective Revisited.’ ” Organ­ization Science 15, no. 2 (May–­June 2004): 364–369.

214

Bibliography

Frohlick, Susan, Ana Dragojlovic, and Adriana Piscitelli. “Introduction: Foreign Travel, Transnational Sex, and Transformations of Heterosexualities.” Gender, Place & Culture 23, no. 2 (2016): 235–242. Fussell, Paul, ed. The Norton Book of Travel. New York: W. W. Norton, 1987. Gallen, Joel, dir. Not Another Teen Movie. Culver City, CA: Columbia Pictures, 2001. Gartenberg, Jon. “Camera Movement in Edison and Biograph Films, 1900–1906.” Cinema Journal 19, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 1–16. Gary, Jerome, dir. On the Road in Amer­i­ca. Featuring Mohamed Abou Ghazel, Ali Amir, and Sanad Al Kubaissi. Washington, DC: Layalina Productions, 2007. Gay ­Family Values. “Gay ­Family Values March on Washington.” October 13, 2009. YouTube video, 7:36. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=TL23anj2vWI&t=29s. Gcsuczechpoint. “The First Black Person I Met.” May  14, 2006. YouTube video, 2:58. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=B1Wq6Cp44Jw&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5 GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=110. Geiger, Jeffrey. American Documentary Film: Projecting the Nation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press, 2011. Germann Molz, Jennie. “Home and Mobility in Narratives of Round-the-World Travel.” Space and Culture 11, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 325–342. Gibson, Dirk  C. “A Quantitative Description of FBI Public Relations.” Public Relations Review 23, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 11–30. Gill, Tiffany M. “ ‘The World Is Ours, Too’: Millennial W ­ omen and the New Black Travel Movement.” In ­Women and Migration: Responses in Art and History, edited by Deborah Willis, Ellyn Toscano, and Kalia Brooks Nelson, 395–414. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2019. Gilliom, John, and Torin Monahan. Supervision: An Introduction to the Surveillance Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Golden, Daniel. Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI, and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit Amer­i­ca’s Universities. New York: Henry Holt, 2017. Goodman, Allan. Foreword to The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by Ross Lewin. New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009, ix–­x. Gore, Joan Elias. Dominant Beliefs and Alternative Voices: Discourse, Belief, and Gender in American Study Abroad. Studies in Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 2005. Goulandris, Atalanta, and Eugene McLaughlin. “What’s in a Name? The UK Newspapers’ Fabrication and Commodification of Foxy Knoxy.” In Transmedia Crime Stories: The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Globalised Media Sphere, edited by Lieve Gies and Maria Bortoluzzi, 17–46. Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Graham, Stephen. “The End of Geography or the Explosion of Place? Conceptualizing Space, Place and Information Technology.” In The New Media and CyberCultures Anthology, edited by Pramod K. Nayar, 90–108. Malden, MA: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2010. Green, Guy, dir. Light in the Piazza. Culver City, CA: MGM, 1962. Green, Joshua, and Henry Jenkins. “The Moral Economy of Web 2.0: Audience, Research, and Convergence Culture.” In Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 213–226. Chichester, UK: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2009.

Bibliography 215 Green, Victor H. The Negro Travelers’ Green Book. New York: Victor H. Green, 1956. Greenheart Exchange. “Sarah’s Tour of Her Host F ­ amily’s Home in Austria.” May 24, 2013. YouTube video, 2:09. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=q0qvLBYKzFU. Griffith, Maggie, and Zizi Papacharissi. “Looking for You: An Analy­sis of Video Blogs.” First Monday 15, nos. 1–4 ( January 2010), https://­firstmonday​.­org​/­ojs​/­index​.­php​/­fm​ /­article​/­view​/2­ 769​/2­ 430#p1. Griffiths, Alison. Carceral Fantasies: Cinema and Prison in Early Twentieth-­Century Amer­ i­ca. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016. —­—— ­ . Shivers Down Your Spine: Cinema, Museums, and the Immersive View. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. —­—­—. “Time Traveling IMAX Style: Tales from the ­Giant Screen.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 238–258. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Grindstaff, Laura. “Just Be Yourself—­Only More So: Ordinary Celebrity in the Era of Self-­Service Tele­vi­sion.” In The Politics of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion: Global Perspectives, edited by Marwan M. Kraidy and Katherine Sender, 44–58. New York: Routledge, 2011. Groening, Stephen. Cinema beyond Territory: Inflight Entertainment and Atmospheres of Globalisation. London: BFI/Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Grünzweig, Walter, and Nana Rinehart. “International Understanding and Global Interdependence: ­Towards a Critique of International Education.” In Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical Approaches to International Education in the Age of Cyberculture, edited by Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart, 5–24. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2002. Guida, Denise Scannell. “Amanda Knox and Bella Figura.” Italian Americana 31, no.  2 (Summer 2013): 148–167. Gunning, Tom. “Before Documentary: Early Nonfiction Films and the ‘View’ Aesthetic.” In Uncharted Territory: Essays on Early Nonfiction Film, edited by Daan Hertogs and Nico de Klerk, 9–24. Amsterdam: Stichting Nederlands Filmmuseum, 1997. —­—­—. “ ‘The Whole World within Reach’: Travel Images without Borders.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 25–41. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Guthrie, Kate. “ACIS Costa Rica 2016.” July 15, 2016. YouTube video, 2:16. https://­www​ .­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=y6LsDsgnDOc. Harris, Kandace  L. “ ‘Follow Me on Instagram’: ‘Best-­Self ’ Identity Construction and Gaze through Hashtag Activism and Selfie Self-­Love.” In ­Women of Color and Social Media Multitasking: Blogs, Timelines, Feeds, and Community, edited by Keisha Edwards Tassie and Sonja M. Brown Givens, 131–143. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015. Hawes, Colin S., and Shuyu Kong. “Primetime Dispute Resolution: Real­ity TV Mediation Shows in China’s ‘Harmonious Society.’ ” Law & Society Review 47, no. 4 (2013): 739–770. Hearn, Alison. “ ‘John, a 20 Year Old Boston Native with a G ­ reat Sense of Humor’: On the Spectacularization of the ‘Self ’ and Incorporation of Identity in the Age of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion.” In The Celebrity Culture Reader, edited by P. David Marshall, 618–633. London: Routledge, 2006. Hello Altine. “Our Study Abroad Experience: Being Black in China.” September 28, 2016. YouTube video, 38:30. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=OnNdwDFEJDA&list= PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=10.

216

Bibliography

Herbig, Katherine L. The Expanding Spectrum of Espionage, 1947–2015. US Department of Defense, Defense Personnel and Security Research Center (PERSEREC). Technical Report 17–10. August 2017. Heron, Barbara. Desire for Development: Whiteness, Gender, and the Helping Imperative. Waterloo, ON, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007. Herzberg, Bob. The FBI and the Movies: A History of the Bureau on Screen and b­ ehind the Scenes in Hollywood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2007. Hess, Jared, dir. Napoleon Dynamite. Featuring Jon Heder. Hollywood, CA: MTV Films, 2004. Hetz, Patricia R., Christi L. Dawson, and Theresa A. Cullen. “Social Media Use and the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) While Studying Abroad.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 47, no. 4 (2015): 259–272. Hill, Annette. Real­ity TV: Audiences and Popu­lar Factual Tele­vi­sion. London: Routledge, 2005. —­—— ­ . Restyling Factual TV: Audiences and News, Documentary and Real­ity Genres. New York: Routledge, 2007. Hillis, Ken. Online a Lot of the Time: Ritual, Fetish, Sign. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009. Hofer, Barbara K., Stacey Woody Thebodo, Kristen Meredith, Zoe Kaslow, and Alexandra Saunders. “The Long Arm of the Digital Tether: Communication with Home during Study Abroad.” Frontiers: The International Journal of Study Abroad 28 (November 2016): 24–41. Hoffa, William W. A History of U.S. Study Abroad: Beginnings to 1965. A Special Publication of Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad and The Forum on Education Abroad. Lancaster, PA, 2007. —­—­—. “Learning about the F ­ uture World: International Education and the Demise of the Nation State.” In Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical Approaches to International Education in the Age of Cyberculture, edited by Walter Grünzweig and Nana Rinehart, 57–76. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2002. Holland, Savage Steve, dir. Better Off Dead. Featuring John Cusack. Burbank, CA: Warner ­Brothers, 1985. Holt, Jennifer, and Alisa Perren, “Introduction: Does the World R ­ eally Need One More Field of Study?” In Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren, 1–16. Chichester, UK: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2009. Hovey, Rebecca, and Adam Weinberg. “Global Learning and the Making of Citizen Diplomats.” In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by Ross Lewin, 33–48. New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009. Howe, Maija. “The Photographic Hangover: Reconsidering the Aesthetics of the Postwar 8mm Home Movie.” In Amateur Filmmaking: The Home Movie, the Archive, the Web, edited by Laura Rascaroli and Gwenda Young, with Barry Monahan, 39–50. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014. Huesca, Robert. “How Facebook Can Ruin Study Abroad.” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 14, 2013. https://­www​.­chronicle​.c­ om​/­article​/­How​-­Facebook​-­Can​-­Ruin​ -­Study​/­136633.

Bibliography 217 Hughes, John, dir. Sixteen Candles. Featuring Molly Ringwald. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 1984. Hughes, Peter. “Blogging Identity​.­com​.­” In The Cinema of Me: The Self and Subjectivity in First Person Documentary, edited by Alisa Lebow, 235–249. London: Wallflower Press, 2012. Humphreys, Lee. The Qualified Self: Social Media and the Accounting of Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018. “I Found a Black Girl in Spain! & This Is What We Did | Study Abroad Spain.” n.d. YouTube video. Removed from YouTube. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=bCWgSl7 t3vA&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=49. Iamblvcksheep. “Black Girls Travel: I Got Accepted Abroad/USAC Pro­cess!” April  2, 2017. YouTube video, 10:29. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=mCAm7t_sQsk&lis t=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=21. IES Abroad. “Beijing | Film Festival 2014 Winner | East of ­Here.” September 1, 2014. YouTube video, 11:33. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=jStPM_Tkw5Y. “Buenos Aires | Film Festival 2015 Winner | It’s Okay.” September 1, 2015. YouTube video, 8:33. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=hHrAfpb9nEg. —­—­—. “Capetown | 2019 Film Festival Semi-­Finalist | Lekker.” November 8, 2019. YouTube video, 4:59. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om/ watch?v=sepGhZyh2PQ&list=PLf4F2 fuc6sPWKI4r060VYPsh-­SxWMRkx&index=4. —­—­—. “Dublin | Film Festival 2019 Finalist | Dear Dublin.” October 1, 2019. YouTube video, 9:56. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=SIlqT9BTSZk&t=163s. —­—­—. “How It Works.” Accessed April  16, 2018. https://­www​.­iesabroad​.o­ rg​/­study​ -­abroad​/fi­ lm​-­festival​/­how​-­it​-­works. —­—­—. “Japan | Film Festival 2019 Finalist | Come Alive.” October  1, 2019. YouTube video, 4:56. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=GU2GzKkOajk&list=PLf4F2f-­uc6 sPWKI4r060VYPsh-­SxWMRkx&index=2. —­—­—. “London | Film Festival 2016 Finalist | FOMO.” August 24, 2016. YouTube video, 3:59. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=8d2r5IlAw9M. —­—­—. “Madrid | Film Festival Semi-­Finalist | A Story of Healing.” November 8, 2019. YouTube video, 7:47. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=KGPIBIHZlrw&list=PLf 4F2fuc6sPWKI4r060VYPsh-­SxWMRkx&index=9. —­—­—. “Our Previous Winners.” Accessed April  16, 2018. https://­www​.­iesabroad​.o­ rg​ /­film​-­festival#paragraph​-­big​_­tiles​_­wrapper​-­5691. —­—­—. “Paris | Film Festival 2019 G ­ rand Prize Winner | Les Cinq Mois.” October 1, 2019. YouTube video, 9:41. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=msRVmgTJVm4. —­—­—. “Rabat | Film Festival 2016 Finalist | I Choose Openness.” August 24, 2016. YouTube video, 9:04. https://­www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=oORv3iZr_Yg. —­—­—. “Rio/Homestays/This Is Study Abroad.” May  19, 2014. YouTube video, 2:01. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=g-­CsjbJwe2E&t=0s&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozqV hIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index=6. —­—­—. “Santiago | 2017 Film Fest Winner | “Solitude: A Companion Abroad.” September 21, 2017. YouTube Video, 6:44. https://­www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=chQuIawO_yE. —­—­—. “Study Abroad Film Festival.” Accessed April  23, 2018. https://­www​.­iesabroad​ .­org​/­film​-f­ estival.

218

Bibliography

—­—­—. “Tokyo | Film Festival 2014 Finalist | Japan: A Boy’s Journey.” September 1, 2014. YouTube video, 6:04. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=29BNR0YGd2I&t=188s. —­—­—. “Vienna | Film Festival 2016 G ­ rand Prize Winner | Even in Eu­rope . . .” August 24, 2016. YouTube video, 4:02. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=0iNv2eh4​YZ8​&t=47s. IIE: The Power of International Education. “Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge.” Accessed June  1, 2020. https://­www​.­iie​.o­ rg​/­W hy​-­IIE​/­Announcements​ /­2015​/0­ 5​/­2015​-0­ 5​-­05​-­New​-­York​-T ­ imes​-­in​-­Education​-­Video​-­Contest. —­—­—. “Infographics: Open Doors 2018: Infographics—­International + U.S. Study Abroad.” November  2017. https://­www​.­iie​.­org​/­Research​-­and​-­Insights​/­Open​-­Doors​ /­Fact​-­Sheets​-­and​-­Infographics​/­Infographics. —­—­—. “International Student Data.” Accessed May 23, 2020, 2020. https://­www​.i­ie​.­org​ /­Research​-­and​-­Insights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Fact​-­Sheets​-­and​-­Infographics​/­Infographics​ /­International​-­Student​-­Data. —­—­—. “Student Profile.” Accessed July  1, 2019. https://­www​.­iie​.­org​/­Research​-­and​ -­Insights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Data​/­US​-­Study​-­Abroad​/­Student​-­Profile. —­—— ­ . U.S. Study Abroad, Open Doors Report. 2018. https://­www​.­iie​.­org​/­en​/­Research​ -­and​-I­ nsights​/­Open​-­Doors​/­Data​/­US​-­Study​-A ­ broad. IIEglobal. “Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge Highlights | Runner Up Elizabeth Stallard.” September 24, 2015. YouTube video, 2:29. https://­www​.­youtube​ .­com​/­watch​?­v=6TWClfGB6TU. —­—­—. “Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge Highlights | Runner Up Justice Whitaker.” September 22, 2015. YouTube video, 3:00. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?v­ =Tf TEPpx0Cmg. —­—­—. “Winner of the Generation Study Abroad Video Contest | Alejandro Alba.” October 1, 2015. YouTube video, 3:03. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=VgT3a2tCszA. Illinois State University, Study Abroad. “Safety Abroad.” Accessed April 2, 2019. https://­ studyabroad​.­illinoisstate​.­edu​/­healthsafety​/­predeparture​/­safety​/­. Institute of Education Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics (IES NCES). “Digest of Education Statistics.” Accessed September  15, 2019. https://­nces​.­ed​.­gov​ /­programs​/d­ igest​/­d17​/t­ ables​/­dt17​_3­ 06​.­10​.­asp. ISA. “ISA Student Video Contest 2013—­‘Lights of Love’ by Nick Pakradooni.” October 23, 2013. YouTube video, 2:41. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=oGFEYzFRSKA. —­—­—. “ISA Student Video Contest 2016: ­Grand Prize Winner—­Jack Lansford (Christchurch, New Zealand).” January 20, 2017. YouTube video, 3:35. https://­www​.­youtube​ .­com​/­watch​?­v=yDIhgGpjg9c&t=7s. —­—­—. “ISA Video Contest,” accessed April 20, 2018, https://­www​.­studiesabroad​.­com​ /­alumni​/v­ ideo​-­contest. —­—­—. “ISA Video Contest Winners.” Updated January 31, 2018. https://­www​.­youtube​ .­com/playlist?list=PLy9GCN2SvxxiW8plsnG0fnq5-­NmFKA_iM. —­—­—. “2017 Video Contest ­Grand Prize Winner—­Haley Gasparine ISA Paris: My Study Abroad at a Glance.” January 5, 2018. YouTube video, 2:42. https://­www​.­youtube​ .­com​/­watch​?­v=HzHmYj_SHFw. Isabelle. “10 Movies That ­Will Inspire You to Travel the World.” Go (blog). EF: Education First. Accessed March  12, 2017. https://­www​.­ef​.­edu​/­blog​/­language​/­10​-­movies​-­that​ -­will​-­inspire​-y­ ou​-­to​-­travel​/­.

Bibliography 219 ISE Bloggers. “FBI Releases Active Shooter Training Film, The Coming Storm.” National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. November  10, 2015. https://­www​.d­ ni​.­gov​/­index​.­php​/­ncsc​-­who​-­we​-­are​/­ncsc​ -­history​/­ncsc​-­t ime​-­l ine​-­of​-­c i​-­milestones​/­310​-­about​/­organization​/­information​ -­sharing​-­environment​/­ise​-­blog​/­2467​-­fbi​-­releases​-­active​-­shooter​-­training​-­film​-­the​ -­coming​-s­ torm. Jefferess, David. “Unsettling Cosmopolitanism: Global Citizenship and the Cultural Politics of Benevolence.” In Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, edited by Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti and Lynn Mario T. M. de Souza, 27–46. New York: Routledge, 2012. Jenkins, Henry. “Youth Voice, Media, and Po­liti­cal Engagement: Introducing the Core Concepts.” In By Any Means Necessary: The New Youth Activism, edited by Henry Jenkins, Sangita Shresthova, Liana Gamber-­ Thompson, Neta Kliger-­ Vilenchik, and Arely M. Zimmerman, 1–60. New York: New York University Press, 2016. Jermyn, Deborah. “ ‘This Is about Real P ­ eople!’: Video Technologies, Actuality and Affect in the Tele­vi­sion Crime Appeal.” In Understanding Real­ity Tele­vi­sion, edited by Sue Holmes and Deborah Jermyn, 71–90. London: Routledge, 2004. Jessup-­Anger, Jody. “Gender Observations and Study Abroad: How Students Reconcile Cross-­Cultural Differences Related to Gender.” Journal of College Student Development 49, no. 4 ( July 2008): 360–373. Jewkes, Yvonne. “Foreword: The Tragicomedy of Perugia: Power and Prejudice, Visibility and Invisibility in the Making of a Transnational, Postmodern Media Story.” In Transmedia Crime Stories: The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Globalised Media Sphere, edited by Lieve Gies and Maria Bortoluzzi, v–xv. Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2016. Jo, Marquie. “Host F ­ amily House Tour.” January 15, 2013. YouTube video, 3:38. https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=Agf TqeZCPKc&t=1s. Johnson, Vincent R. “Americans Abroad: International Educational Programs and Tort Liability.” Journal of College and University Law 32, no. 2 (2006): 309–360. Jones, Janet Megan. “Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big ­Brother Transmissions; Investigating the Bound­aries between Notions of Consumers and Producers of Factual Tele­vi­sion.” New Media & Society 5, no. 3 (2003): 400–421. Jordan, Fiona, and Cara Aitchison. “Tourism and the Sexualisation of the Gaze: Solo Female Tourists’ Experiences of Gendered Power, Surveillance and Embodiment.” Leisure Studies 27, no. 3 (2008): 329–349. JorWish. “My Week Studying Abroad in London!!!” July 14, 2018. YouTube video, 13:12. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=5PpsqeqI7vo&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GF txK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=140. Kalamazoo College, Center for International Programs. “Health, Safety, and Emergency Resources.” Accessed April  2, 2019. http://­reason​.­kzoo​.­edu​/­cip​/­parent​_­resources​ /­cip​_n­ ews​/h­ ealth​/­. Karimi, Faith. “ ‘ Why UNC Charlotte? Why My Classroom?’: All-­Too-­Familiar Shooting Scene Plays Out on Last Day of Classes.” CNN, May 1, 2019. https://­www​.­cnn​.­com​ /­2019​/­05​/­01​/­us​/­university​-­of​-­north​-­carolina​-­charlotte​-­shooting​-­wednesday​/­index​ .­html.

220

Bibliography

Katnipkitkat. “Horrible Japa­nese Homestay.” January  10, 2016. YouTube video, 18:13. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=_Iz4fxtWGUE&t=3s. Kattelle, Alan. Home Movies: A History of the American Industry, 1897–1979. Nashua, NH: Transition Publishing, 2000. Kavka, Misha. Real­ity TV. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012. Keller, John M., and Maritheresa Frain. “The Impact of Geo-­Political Events, Globalization, and National Policies on Study Abroad Programming and Participation.” In A History of U.S. Study Abroad: 1965–­Pre­sent, edited by William W. Hoffa and Stephen C. DePaul, 15–23. Carlisle, PA: Forum on Education Abroad, 2010. Kelly, Casey Ryan. Food Tele­vi­sion and Otherness in the Age of Globalization. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017. Kenira. “Black in ­Korea | First Day—­Travel Vlog 1.” September 3, 2018. YouTube video, 8:57. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=sSLGegTQ3Xg&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozA Hs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=104. Kennelly, Amanda. “Hiroshima Home Stay (part 1).” May 22, 2007. YouTube video, 5:47. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=TF6tLxyOZRA&t=1s. Khabir, Kahlea. “5 Tips for Studying Abroad as a Conscious Black Girl-­Brasil.” December 7, 2016. YouTube video, 25:50. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v =j0BL8XA3iS U&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=71. Killick, David. Developing the Global Student: Higher Education in an Era of Globalization. New York: Routledge, 2015. —­—­—. “Seeing-­Ourselves-­in-­the-­World: Developing Global Citizenship through International Mobility and Campus Community.” Journal of Studies in International Education 16, no. 4 (2012): 372–389. Kimble, Matthew, William  F. Flack  Jr., and Emily Burbridge. “Study Abroad Increases Risk for Sexual Assault in Female Undergraduates: A Preliminary Report.” Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 5, no. 5 (2013): 426–430. Kirby, Lynne. Parallel Tracks: The Railroad and ­Silent Cinema. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997. Kitsukara. “Japan Exchange: First Host F ­ amily House.” May 14, 2016. YouTube video (no longer available). Knight, Susan M., and Barbara C. Schmidt-­Rinehart. “Exploring Conditions to Enhance Student/Host ­Family Interaction Abroad.” Foreign Language Annals 43, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 64–79. Koebler, Jason. “A List of the Dumb Swag the FBI Made to Promote Its Dumb Propaganda Movie.” Motherboard, November  12, 2015. https://­motherboard​.­vice​.­com​/­en​ _­us​/­article​/­d7y8jz​/­a​-­list​-­of​-­the​-­dumb​-­swag​-­the​-­f bi​-­made​-­to​-­promote​-­its​-­dumb​ -­propaganda​-­movie. Kraidy, Marwan  M. Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and Arab Politics: Contention in Public Life. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Kuntsman, Adi. “Introduction: Affective Fabrics of Digital Culture.” In Digital Cultures and the Politics of Emotion: Feelings, Affect and Technological Change, edited by Athina Karatzogianni and Adi Kuntsman, 1–21. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. LaFaye, Sierra. “All About My Experience Being Black in Spain—­Black Study Abroad.” April  18, 2019. YouTube video, 10:48. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=1rhL8O0​ OkKE&list=PLWpY8E HJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=13.

Bibliography 221 Laliberté, Nicole, and Charlene Waddell. “Feeling Our Way: Emotions and the Politics of Global Citizenship in Study Abroad Programming.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29, no. 2 (Fall 2017): 79–93. Land Rover. “Land Rover Launches New Marketing Campaign to Celebrate the Arrival of the New Discovery in North Amer­i­ca.” May 1, 2017. http://­media​.­landrover​.­com​ /­en​-­us​/­news​/­2017​/­05​/­land​-­rover​-­launches​-­new​-­marketing​-­campaign​-­celebrate​ -­arrival​-­new​-­discovery​-n­ orth. Lane, Jim. The Autobiographical Documentary in Amer­ic­ a. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002. Lane-­Toomey, Cara. “U.S. Government F ­ actors Influencing an Expansion of Study Abroad in the M ­ iddle East/North Africa.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 24 (Fall 2014): 121–140. Lapedis, Hilary. “Popping the Question: The Function and Effect of Popu­lar ­Music in Cinema.” Popu­lar ­Music 18, no. 3 (October 1999): 367–379. Latersay. “Jordan Vlog | Study Abroad | Part One | Black Girls Travel!” February 5, 2019. YouTube video, 7:34. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=ySPMWg1ZQEM&t=1s. Lawrence, Karen R. Penelope Voyages: ­Women and Travel in the British Literary Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994. Lean, David, dir. Summertime. Venice, Italy: Lopert Films, 1955. Lebow, Alisa. “The Camera as Peripatetic Migration Machine.” In The Cinema of Me: The Self and Subjectivity in First Person Documentary, edited by Alisa Lebow, 219–234. London: Wallflower Press, 2012. —­—­—. Introduction to The Cinema of Me: The Self and Subjectivity in First Person Documentary, edited by Alisa Lebow, 1–14. London: Wallflower Press, 2012. ­Legal Information Institute. “18 U.S. Code §793. Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information.” Cornell Law School. Accessed April 5, 2019. https://­www​.­law​ .­cornell​.­edu​/­uscode​/­text​/­18​/­793. Lenoch, Michael. “Pissed Off at Germany: The Bad While Studying Abroad.” July  28, 2014. YouTube video, 8:15. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=UAcVYrL4Fsw. Lewin, Ross. “Introduction: The Quest for Global Citizenship through Study Abroad.” In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by Ross Lewin, xiii–­x xii. New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009. Lipkin, Steven N. Real Emotional Logic: Film and Tele­vi­sion Docudrama as Persuasive Practice. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002. Lipkin, Steven N., Derek Paget, and Jane Roscoe. “Docudrama and Mock-­Documentary: Defining Terms, Proposing Canons.” In Docufictions: Essays on the Intersection of Documentary Fictional Filmmaking, edited by Gary  D. Rhodes and John Parris Springer, 11–26. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006. Lungren, David  C., and Donald  J. Rudawsky. “Female and Male College Students’ Responses to Negative Feedback from Parents and Peers.” Sex Roles 39 (1998): 409– 429. https://­doi​.o­ rg​/­10​.­1023​/­A :1018823126219. Maguire, Emma. Girls, Autobiography, Media: Gender and Self-­Mediation in Digital Economies. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Malveaux, Gregory F. Look before Leaping: Risks, Liabilities, and Repair of Study Abroad in Higher Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

222

Bibliography

Marmolejo, Francisco. “Global Trends and International Higher Education: A Wake Up Call.” In Trends & Insights: Internationalization in a Time of Global Disruption. NAFSA: Association of International Educators, March 2019. https://­www​.­nafsa​.­org​/­professional​ -­resources​/­research​-­and​-­trends​/­internationalization​-­time​-g­ lobal​-­disruption. Marston, Kendra. “The World Is Her Oyster: Negotiating Con­temporary White Womanhood in Hollywood’s Tourist Spaces.” Cinema Journal 55, no. 4 (Fall 2016): 3–27. Martin, Kevin W. “ ‘­Behind Cinerama’s Aluminum Curtain’: Cold War Spectacle and Propaganda at the First Damascus International Exposition.” Journal of Cold War Studies 17, no. 4 (Fall 2005): 59–85. Martrice, Miracle. “Black and Abroad Part 1: My First Week in Amsterdam.” June 24, 2018. YouTube video, 4:22. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=gzzS1EIgvC0&list=PLWp Y8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=103. Mast, Jelle. “New Directions in Hybrid Popu­lar Tele­vi­sion: A Reassessment of Tele­vi­sion Mock-­Documentary.” Media, Culture and Society 31 (2009): 231–250. Mayron, Melanie, dir. Slap Her, She’s French. Written by Lamar Damon and Robert Lee King. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 2002. McCann, Ben. L’Auberge Espagnole: Eu­ro­pean Youth on Film. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018. McCarthy, Anna. “Stanley Milgram, Allen Funt, and Me.” In Real­ity TV: Remaking Tele­vi­ sion Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 23–43. New York: New York University Press, 2004. Middleton, Jason. Documentary’s Awkward Turn: Cringe Comedy and Media Spectatorship. New York: Routledge, 2014. Mikal, Jude P., and Kathryn Grace. “Against Abstinence-­Only Education Abroad: Viewing Internet Use during Study Abroad as a Pos­si­ble Experience Enhancement.” Journal of Studies in International Education 16, no. 3 (2012): 287–306. Miller, Brandon. “YouTube as Educator: A Content Analy­sis of Issues, Themes, and the Educational Value of Transgender-­Created Online Videos.” Social Media + Society, April–­June 2017, 1–12. Mills, Brett. “Comedy Verite: Con­temporary Sitcom Form.” Screen 45 (2004): 63–78. Momo Pixel. Hair Nah (2017). Developed by Trent Johnson. ­Music by Brandon Broadus. http://­hairnah​.­com. Monroe, Nioby. “My Study Abroad Experience: Being Black in Madrid, Spain!!!” March 6, 2019. YouTube video, 10:28. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=Hw60Svvi lHo&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=21&t=0s. Montana, Riccardo. “Prosecution in Action in the Italian Criminal Justice System: The Amanda Knox Case.” In Transmedia Crime Stories: The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Globalised Media Sphere, edited by Lieve Gies and Maria Bortoluzzi, 167–188. Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Moore, Vionna. “Do Black College Students Study Abroad?? \ Tips/Encouragement.” May 9, 2017. YouTube video, 10:11. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com /watch?v=Bej7UD8kH lc&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=43.

Bibliography 223 Moran, James M. ­There’s No Place Like Home Video. Vis­i­ble Evidence, vol. 12, no. 54. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. Morin, Erica A. “ ‘No Vacation for M ­ other’: Traditional Gender Roles in Outdoor Travel Lit­er­a­tures, 1940–1965.” ­Women’s Studies 41 (2012): 436–456. Morris, Meaghan. “At the Henry Parkes Motel.” Cultural Studies 2 ( January 1988): 3–25. Murphy, Dianna, Narek Sahakyan, Doua Yong-­Yi, and Sally Sieloff Magnan. “The Impact of Study Abroad on the Global Engagement of University Gradu­ates.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 24 (Fall 2014): 1–24. Musser, Charles. “The Travel Genre in 1903–1904: Moving ­towards Fictional Narrative.” Iris 2, no. 1 (1984): 47–59. Naficy, Hamid. “Framing Exile: From Homeland to Homepage.” In Home, Exile, Homeland: Film, Media, and the Politics of Place, edited by Hamid Naficy, 1–16. New York: Routledge, 1999. NAFSA (National Association of Foreign Student Advisors). “The Economic Imperative of a Global Education.” White paper from the NAFSA 2018 Worldview Global Workforce Development Roundtable. August  2018, 1–4. https://­www​.­nafsa​.­org​/­sites​ /­default​/fi­ les​/­ektron​/fi­ les​/u­ nderscore​/­worldview​_w ­ orkforce​_­roundtable​.­pdf. —­—­—. “NAFSA International Film Festival.” Accessed March 12, 2017. http://­www​.­nafsa​ .­org​/­Annual​_­Conference​/­Special​_­Events​/­NAFSA​_­International​_­Film​_­Festival​/­. —­—— ­ . A National Mandate for Education Abroad: Getting On with the Task, Report of the National Task Force on Undergraduate Education Abroad. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association for International Educators, 1990. —­—— ­ . Securing Amer­i­ca’s ­Future: Global Education for a Global Age; Report of the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 2003. NAFSA and Connecting Our World. “Student Diplomat Video Contest.” Accessed April 23, 2018 (no longer available). NAFSA Association of International Educators (blog). January 4, 2010 (website discontinued). https://­nafsa​.­wordpress​.­com​/­2010​/­01​/­04​/­voting​-b­ egins​-­for​-­the​-­2009​-­student​ -­diplomat​-­video​-c­ ontest​-­choose​-­your​-­favorite​-­today​/­. NAFSA Health and Safety Subcommittee. “Education Abroad and the FBI’s Academic Alliance Program.” Accessed April 15, 2019. https://­www​.­nafsa​.­org​/­Professional​ _­Resources​/­Browse​_­by​_­Interest​/­Education_ ​ ­Abroad​/­Education_ ​ ­Abroad​_­and_ ​ ­the​ _­FBI%E2%80%99s​_­Academic​_A ­ lliance​_­Program​/.­ NaturallyKenya. “An American Girl’s Experience in Sweden | Studying Abroad in Stockholm.” November 10, 2015. YouTube video, 10:12. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​ ?­v=AINCOKfy_U8&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK​-­A&index=39. Negra, Diane. “Romance and/as Tourism Heritage Whiteness and the (Inter)national Imaginary in the New ­Woman’s Film.” In Keyframes: Popu­lar Cinema and Cultural Studies, edited by Matthew Tinkcom and Amy Villarejo, 82–97. London: Routledge, 2001. Nerdy Nuna. “Tour of Oaxacan Homestay!” January  20, 2013. YouTube video, 6:58. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=BjolVw8_zKg&t=16s. Nerenberg, Ellen. Murder Made in Italy: Hom­i­cide, Media, and Con­temporary Italian Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.

224

Bibliography

Neumann, Mark. “Amateur Film, Automobility and the Cinematic Aesthetics of Leisure.” In Amateur Filmmaking: The Home Movie, the Archive, the Web, edited by Laura Rascaroli and Gwenda Young, with Barry Monahan, 51–64. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014. Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001. Nicholson, Heather Norris. “Telling Travelers’ Tales: The World through Home Movies.” In Engaging Film: Geographies of Mobility and Identity, edited by Tim Cresswell and Deborah Dixon, 49–68. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Nikaylah, Jade. “Study Abroad | Tips and Advice from My Experience.” June 13, 2017. YouTube video, 16:49. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=i3pY5p962hI&list =PLWpY8​ EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=137. NNPAFreddie. “Racist Incidents Prompt Airbnb Partnership with NAACP to Help Blacks Cash In.” BlackpressUSA. April 15, 2019. https://­www​.­blackpressusa​.­com​/­racist​ -­incidents​-­prompt​-­airbnb​-­partnership​-­with​-­naacp​-­to​-­help​-­blacks​-­cash​-­in​/­. November, Artemis. “Being Black in ­Korea // The Study Abroad Edition.” July 20, 2018. YouTube video, 11:02. https://­www​.­youtube​.c­ om​/­watch​?­v=X3489dPtvB0&list=PLW pY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=29. Nuclear Vault. “Stay Alert, Stay Alive: The Techniques and Mechanics of Arrest [ca. 1960].” July  31, 2012. YouTube video, 22:17. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=FkM1W​ VowdmQ. Nuna, Nerdy. “Tour of Oaxacan Homestay!” January  20, 2013. YouTube video, 6:58. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=BjolVw8_zKg&t=16s. O’Brien, Harvey. “Culture, Commodity, and Céad Míle Fáilte: U.S. and Irish Tourist Films as a Vision of Ireland.” Éire Ireland 37, nos. 1–2 (Spring/Summer 2002): 58–73. Odin, Roger. “Reflections on the ­Family Home Movie as Document: A Semio-­pragmatic Approach.” In Mining the Home Movie: Excavations in Histories and Memories, edited by Karen L. Ishizuka and Patricia R. Zimmermann, 255–271. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Ogden, Anthony  C., Bernhard Streitwieser, and Emily  R. Crawford. “Empty Meeting Grounds: Situating Cultural Learning in US Education Abroad.” In Internationalisation of Higher Education and Global Mobility, edited by Bernhard Streitwieser, 229–258. Oxford: Symposium Books, 2014. O’Mara, Margaret. “The Uses of the Foreign Student.” Social Science History 36, no.  4 (2012): 583–615. Orgeron, David, Marsha Orgeron, and Dan Streible, eds. Learning with the Lights Off: Educational Film in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Orgeron, Devin. “Mobile Home Movies: Travel and le Politique des Amateurs.” Moving Image 6, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 75–100. Ouellette, Laurie. “Camcorder Dos and ­Don’ts: Popu­lar Discourses on Amateur Video and Participatory Tele­vi­sion.” Velvet Light Trap 36 (Fall 1995): 33–44. Ouellette, Laurie, and James Hay. Better Living through Real­ity TV: Tele­vi­sion and Post-­ Welfare Citizenship. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Paige, R. Michael, Andrew D. Cohen, Barbara Kappler, Julie C. Chi, and James P. Lassegard. Maximizing Study Abroad: A Students’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2002.

Bibliography 225 Pashby, Karen. “Questions for Global Citizenship Education in the Context of the ‘New Imperialism’: For Whom, by Whom?” In Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, edited by Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti and Lynn Mario T. M. de Souza, 9–26. New York: Routledge, 2012. Pasternack, Alex. “The FBI Made a Spy Thriller to Remind You Not to Be a Spy.” Motherboard, April  16, 2014. https://­motherboard​.­vice​.c­ om​/­en​_­us​/­article​/­gvyv8j​/­the​-­fbi​ -­made​-­a-​ ­spy​-­thriller​-­to​-r­ emind​-­you​-­not​-­to​-­be​-­a​-­spy. Payne, Teryn. “Momo Pixel ‘Hair Nah’ Video Game Interview.” Teen Vogue, January  5, 2018. https://­www​.­teenvogue​.c­ om​/­story​/­momo​-­pixel​-­hair​-­nah​-­video​-­game​-­interview. Pearson. “Beyond Millennials: The Next Generation of Learners.” Global Research & Insights, 2018. https://­www​.­pearson​.­com​/­content​/­dam​/­one​-­dot​-­com​/­one​-­dot​-­com​ /­global​/­Files​/­news​/­news​-­annoucements​/­2018​/­The​-­Next​-­Generation​-­of​-­Learners​ _­final​.­pdf. Peterson, Jennifer Lynn. Education in the School of Dreams: Travelogues and Early Nonfiction Film. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013. Pettman, Dominic. “So You Think You Can Think.” Inside Higher Ed, August  26, 2013. http://­www​.­insidehighered​.­com​/­views​/­2013​/­08​/­26​/­essay​-­teaching​-­about​-­reality​-­tv​ -­turning​-­course​-r­ eality​-­tv. Poletti, Anna, and Julie Rak. “Introduction: Digital Dialogues.” In Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online, edited by Anna Poletti and Julie Rak, 3–24. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2014. Powers, Richard G. G-­Men: Hoover’s FBI in American Culture. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1983. Quintéro, Jose, dir. The Roman Spring of Mrs.  Stone. Louis De Rochemont Associates, 1961. Rabinovitz, Lauren. “From Hale’s Tours to Star Tours: Virtual Voyages, Travel Ride Films, and the Delirium of the Hyper-­Real.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 42–60. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Ramis, Harold, dir. Caddyshack. Featuring Chevy Chase and Rodney Dangerfield. Burbank, CA: Warner ­Brothers, 1980. Ramzy, Austin. “F.B.I. Video Warns of Efforts to Recruit American Students as Spies.” Sinosphere, April  15, 2014. https://­sinosphere​.b­ logs​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2014​/­04​/­15​/­using​ -­china​-­as​-­an​-­example​-­f​-­b​-­i​-­video​-­warns​-­americans​-­about​-­study​-­abroad​/­. Rascaroli, Laura. The Personal Camera: Subjective Cinema and the Essay Film. London: Wallflower Press, 2009. Rauhala, Emily. “FBI Movie Warns U.S. Students Not to Spy for China.” Time, April 16, 2014. http://­time​.­com​/­64530​/­fbi​-m ­ ovie​-­game​-­of​-­pawns​-­china​/­. Raun, Tobias. “DIY Therapy: Exploring Affective Self-­Representations in Trans Video Blogs on YouTube.” In Digital Cultures and the Politics of Emotion: Feelings, Affect and Technological Change, edited by Athina Karatzogianni and Adi Kuntsman, 165–180. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Rawlins, Roblyn. “ ‘ ­W hether I’m an American or Not, I’m Not ­Here So You Can Hit on Me’: Public Harassment in the Experience of U.S. W ­ omen Studying Abroad.” ­Women’s Studies 41 (2012): 476–497.

226

Bibliography

Redden, Elizabeth. “­Women Abroad and Men at Home.” Inside Higher Ed, December 4, 2008. https://­www​.­insidehighered​.­com​/­news​/­2008​/­12​/­04​/­women​-­abroad​-­and​-­men​-­home. Renov, Michael. The Subject of Documentary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004. Rhodes, Gary  D., and John Parris Springer. Introduction to Docufictions: Essays on the Intersection of Documentary Fictional Filmmaking, edited by Gary D. Rhodes and John Parris Springer, 1–10. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006. Richards, Nneya. “Studying Abroad While Black.” January 24, 2018. YouTube video, 5:19. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=TFmqt3ausJk&t=3s. Robertson, Alexa. Mediated Cosmopolitanism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2010. Robinson, Angela, dir. D.E.B.S. Culver City, CA: Samuel Goldwyn Films, 2004. Rocha, Veronica. “Group of Black W ­ omen Kicked Off Napa Train a­ fter Laughing Too Loud.” Los Angeles Times, August 24, 2015. https://­www​.­latimes​.­com​/­local​/­lanow​/­la​ -­me​-­ln​-­black​-­women​-­kicked​-­off​-­napa​-­wine​-­train​-­20150824​-­htmlstory​.­html. Rocket Media (website). Accessed April  6, 2019. http://­rocket​-­media​.­wix​.­com​/­rocket​ -­media#!who​-­we​-­are​/­c2414. Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Objects. 3rd ed. London: Sage, 2015. Rosen, Jay. “The P ­ eople Formerly Known as the Audience.” HuffPost, June 30, 2006, last modified May 25, 2011. https://­www​.­huffingtonpost​.c­ om​/­jay​-­rosen​/­the​-­people​-­formerly​ -­known​_1­ ​_­b​_2­ 4113​.­html. Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Allen, dir. Guilt. Season 1, episode 5, “The Eye of the Needle.” Written by Cathryn Price and Nichole Millard. Aired July 18, 2019, on Freeform. Ross, Sara. “Invitation to the Voyage: The Flight Sequence in Con­temporary 3D Cinema.” Film History 24 (2012): 210–220. Ruoff, Jeffrey. “Introduction: The Filmic Fourth Dimension; Cinema as Audiovisual Vehicle.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 1–24. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. —­—­—. “Show and Tell: The 16mm Travel Lecture Film.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 217–237. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Sadagopan, Swathi Meenakshi. “Feedback Loops and Echo Chambers: How Algorithms Amplify Viewpoints.” The Conversation. February  4, 2019. http://­theconversation​ .­com​/­feedback​-­loops​-­and​-­echo​-­chambers​-­how​-­algorithms​-­amplify​-­v iewpoints​ -­107935. Salisbury, Mark H., Michael B. Paulsen, and Ernest T. Pascarella. “To See the World or Stay at Home: Applying an Integrated Student Choice Model to Explore the Gender Gap in the Intent to Study Abroad.” Research in Higher Education 51 (2010): 615–640. Sanchez-­Laws, Ana Luisa. “Digital Storytelling as an Emerging Documentary Form.” Seminar​.­net—International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning 6, no. 3 (2010): 359–366. https://­journals​.­hioa​.­no​/­index​.­php​/­seminar​/­article​/­view​/­2426. Sarah’sSeoulSearch. “My Host ­Family’s Korean Apartment (HS Exchange).” May 17, 2013. YouTube video, 8:52. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=0nOYnTyqFsM&list=PL WpY8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index=17&t=319s. Sara’s Wish Foundation. Accessed April 2, 2019. http://­www​.­saraswish​.­org.

Bibliography 227 Savicki, Victor. “An Analy­sis of the Contact Types of Study Abroad Students: The Peer Cohort, the Host Culture and the Electronic Presence of the Home Culture in Relation to Readiness and Outcomes.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 19 (Fall/Winter 2010): 61–86. Sbardellati, John. J. Edgar Hoover Goes to the Movies: The FBI and the Origins of Hollywood’s Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012. Schattle, Hans. “Global Citizenship in Theory and Practice.” In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by Ross Lewin, 3–20. New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009. Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. The Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Time and Space in the 19th ­Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Schneider, Alexandra. “Homemade Travelogues: Autosonntag—­a Film Safari in the Swiss Alps.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 157–176. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Schwedel, Heather. “Momo Pixel Lives Life in 8-­Bit.” Slate, December 27, 2017. https://­slate​ .­com​/­technology​/­2017​/­12​/­how​-m ­ omo​-­pixel​-­creator​-­of​-­hair​-­nah​-­uses​-­the​-­internet​.­html. Seed, Patricia. “The Key to the House.” In Home, Exile, Homeland: Film, Media, and the Politics of Place, edited by Hamid Naficy, 84–94. New York: Routledge, 1999. Sender, Katherine. “Real Worlds: Migrating Genres, Travelling Participants, Shifting Theories.” In The Politics of Real­ity Tele­vi­sion: Global Perspectives, edited by Marwan M. Kraidy and Katherine Sender, 1–12. New York: Routledge, 2011. Senft, Theresa M. Camgirls: Celebrity & Community in the Age of Social Networks. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. Shand, Ryan. “Memories of Hard Won Victories: Amateur Moviemaking Contests and Serious Leisure.” Leisure Studies 33, no. 5 (2014): 471–490. Shandley, Robert R. Runaway Romances: Hollywood’s Postwar Tour of Eu­rope. Philadelphia: ­Temple University Press, 2009. Shimpach, Shawn. “Realty Real­ity: HGTV and the Subprime Crisis.” American Quarterly 64, no. 3 (2012): 515–542. Siegel, Kristi. “­Women’s Travel and the Rhe­toric of Peril: It Is Suicide to Be Abroad.” In Gender, Genre, and Identity in ­Women’s Travel Writing, edited by Kristi Siegel, 55–72. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Silverstone, Roger. Media and Morality: On the Rise of the Mediapolis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2007. Simkin, Stevie. “Scarlet Letters from Perugia: ‘Slut-­Shaming’ and the Media Repre­sen­ta­ tions of Amanda Knox.” In Transmedia Crime Stories: The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Globalised Media Sphere, edited by Lieve Gies and Maria Bortoluzzi, 47–68. Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2016. Simply Timah. “Study Abroad Vlog: Wild Day in Milan, Italy.” April 21, 2018. YouTube video, 5:15. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=YtyQSYLrt-­c&list=PLWpY8EHJuZ ozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=16&t=0s. Sirk, Douglas, dir. Interlude. Bavaria, Germany: Universal International Pictures, 1957.

228

Bibliography

Skeggs, Beverley, and Helen Wood. Reacting to Real­ity Tele­vi­sion: Per­for­mance, Audience, and Value. New York: Routledge, 2012. Skinsfanus. “S. A. W. B. (Studying Abroad While Black).” June 26, 2016. YouTube video, 2:15. https://­www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=hBwzO7phc9U&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozA Hs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=8. Smith, Sidonie. Moving Lives: 20th-­Century ­Women’s Travel Writing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. Soccerchump. “Study Abroad in Costa Rica with CEA!!” February  10, 2018. YouTube video, 4:59. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=3jZkhAt-­Bhk&t=4s. Solnit, Rebecca. Wanderlust: A History of Walking. New York: Penguin, 2001. Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Southern Illinois University, Police Department. “Shriver Case: A Textbook Case of Recruitment.” Accessed April 2, 2019. https://­police​.­siu​.­edu​/­ci​/­pawns​/­textbook​.­php. Spigel, Lynn. Make Room for TV: Tele­vi­sion and the ­Family Ideal in Postwar Amer­i­ca. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Spy Culture. “The FBI’s Entertainment Liaison Office.” Accessed April 15, 2019. https://­ www​.­spyculture​.­com​/­fbis​-­entertainment​-­liaison​-­office​/­. St. Thomas University. “The Coming Storm—an FBI Production.” February 15, 2018. YouTube video, 41:35. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=9jgS7jBXZU4. Staples, Amy J. “The Last of the ­Great (Foot-­Slogging) Explorers: Lewis Cotlow and the Ethnographic Imaginary in Popu­lar Travel Film.” In Virtual Voyages: Cinema and Travel, edited by Jeffrey Ruoff, 195–237. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. —­—­—. “Safari Adventure: Forgotten Cinematic Journeys in Africa.” Film History: An International Journal 18, no. 4 (2006): 392–411. Stevens, Matt. “Google Earth’s New Voyager Tool Aims to Feed Our Wanderlust.” New York Times, April 21, 2017. https://­www​.­nytimes​.c­ om​/­2017​/­04​/­21​/­technology​/­google​ earthvoyager​.­html. Strain, Ellen. Public Places, Private Journeys: Ethnography, Entertainment, and the Tourist Gaze. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003. Strange, Hannah, and Heather J. Gibson, “An Investigation of Experiential and Transformative Learning in Study Abroad Programs.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 85–100. Strangelove, Michael. Watching YouTube: Extraordinary Videos by Ordinary ­ People. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Stutsman, Staci. “ ‘Your Life. Your Time’: Addressing a Fractured Audience through Docudrama.” In The Lifetime Network: Essays on ‘Tele­vi­sion for ­Women’ in the 21st ­Century, edited by Emily L. Newman and Emily Witsell, 136–150. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2016. ­Sullivan, Dennis. “My Homestay House in Japan.” February  23, 2014. YouTube video, 10:55. https://­www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=F0ob7MMk2qc&list=PLWpY8EHJuZoz qVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index=24&t=0s. Summers, India. “Study Abroad in Thailand | Vlog 1 | Take Off & Orientation.” September 13, 2016. YouTube video, 8:32. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com /watch?v=dD7S2hwvM zw&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=14. Sweeney, Karyn. “Inclusive Excellence and Underrepre­sen­ta­tion of Students of Color in Study Abroad.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 23 (Fall 2013): 1–21.

Bibliography 229 Talvitie-­Lamberg, Karoliina. “Confessions in Social Media—­Performative, Constrained, Au­then­tic and Participatory Self-­Representations in Vlogs.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2014. Tara E. “Last Study Abroad Q & A | Being a POC, Housing, Classes, + More.” May 1, 2017, YouTube video, 14:30. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=TvltDZ9qzNs&list=PL WpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=12. Tarah, Nia. “Nia Tarah Traveling (Thoughts in Sicily) Ft Dom the Bomb! *Study Abroad*.” March 9, 2013. YouTube video, 5:47. https://­www​.y­ outube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=0vOMCbt​ Fahg&list=PLivhzU_ijtfCzTYetsyBxCGVTjbb1okwH&index=8. —­—­—. “Paris Vlog! (chipotle!).” April  12, 2013. YouTube video, 2:21. https://­www​ .­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=YNRCPN828IU&list=PLivhzU_ijtfCzTYetsyBxCGVTjbb1 okwH&index=5&t=0s. —­—­—. “Paris Vlog 2 (Eiffel Tower).” April 14, 2013. YouTube video, 2:37. https://­www​ .­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=5jAoCzdTS_E&list=PLivhzU_ijtfCzTYetsyBxCGVTjbb1ok wH&index=4&t=6s. TealColoredICE. “First Host F ­ amily Tour!!! Japan Rotary Youth Exchange (V-­Log #4).” October 27, 2014. YouTube video, 10:59. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=JIK4qI​ CZJDI. Teens of Color Abroad (website). Accessed July 10, 2019. https://­www​.­teensofcolorabroad​.­org. Terranova, Tiziana. “­Free ­Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy.” Social Text 18, no. 2 (2000): 48–49. Thomas, Julian, dir. Amanda Knox Trial: 5 Key Questions. London: Channel 5, 2013. Thomas, M’Balia. “The Problematization of Racial/Ethnic Minority Student Participation in U.S. Study Abroad.” Applied Linguistics Review 4, no. 2 (2013): 365–390. Thompson, Kerry. “My Study Abroad Experience | Australia Pt. 2-­Let’s Talk Black Hair.” January 21, 2018. YouTube video, 4:33. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=4VtzRVce 1js&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=13. Tobin, Valentina. “Vlog #27-­My Host F ­ amily’s Japa­nese House-­Exchange Student in Japan.” February 28, 2014. YouTube video, 17:55. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=RqolJK2 wbxg&index=37&t=63s&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip. Todd, Andrea. “Destination: Danger—­a Must-­Read Report If You Love to Travel.” Cosmopolitan, August 2000, 202–205. Tomlinson, John. “Beyond Connection: Cultural Cosmopolitan and Ubiquitous Media.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 14, no. 4 (2011): 347–361. Totten, Gary. African American Travel Narratives from Abroad: Mobility and Cultural Work in the Age of Jim Crow. Amherst: University of Mas­sa­chu­setts Press, 2015. Tramsue. “20 Hour Travel Day to Greece! | Study Abroad Vlog | Travel Vlog | tramsue.” January 10, 2019. YouTube video, 14:53. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=Ovgrbh​ QtG00&t=12s. Truffaut, François. Truffaut by Truffaut. Edited by Dominique Robourdin. Translated by Robert Erich Wolf. New York: Abrams, 1987. Turner, Bonnie, Mark Brazill, and Terry Turner. That ’70s Show. Los Angeles, CA: FOX, 1998–2006. Turner, Graeme. “Real­ity Tele­vi­sion and the Demotic Turn.” In A Companion to Real­ity Tele­vi­sion, edited by Laurie Ouellette, 309–323. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2017.

230

Bibliography

Twombly, Susan  B., Mark  H. Salisbury, Shannon  D. Tumanut, and Paul Klute. Study Abroad in a New Global ­Century: Renewing the Promise, Refining the Purpose. ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 38, no. 4. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals, 2012. Tyler, Kathryn. “­Don’t Fence Her In.” HRMagazine 46, no. 3 (March 2001): 69–77. Tzanelli, Rodanthi. The Cinematic Tourist: Explorations in Globalization, Culture and Re­sis­ tance. London: Routledge, 2010. UMass Lowell. “Health, Safety & Travel Preparation.” Accessed April  2, 2019. https://­ www​.u­ ml​.­edu​/­international​-­programs​/­health​.­aspx. Ungar, Sanford J. “The Study Abroad Solution: How to Open the American Mind.” Foreign Affairs 95, no. 2 (March/April, 2016): 111–123. University of Michigan. “Identities Abroad.” Center for Global and Intercultural Study. Accessed July 1, 2019. https://­lsa​.­umich​.­edu​/­cgis​/­undergraduate​-­students​/­identities​ -­abroad​.­html. University of Pittsburgh. “Technology Guidelines and Tips for International Travel.” Accessed April  2, 2019. https://­www​.­technology​.­pitt​.­edu​/­security​/­technology​ -­guidelines​-­and​-­tips​-­international​-­travel. Urry, John. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Con­temporary Society. London: Sage, 1990. Wächter, Arnd, dir. American Textures. Edinburgh, Scotland: Crossing Borders Education, 2016. —­—— ­ . Crossing Borders. Edinburgh, Scotland: Crossing Borders Education, 2009. —­—— ­ . The Dialogue. Edinburgh, Scotland: Crossing Borders Education, 2013. Waggoner, Kim, and Tom Christenberry. “Virtual Learning: Distance Education for Law Enforcement.” In collaboration with the FBI. October  1997. https://­www2​.­fbi​.­gov​ /­publications​/l­ eb​/­1997​/o­ ct971​.­htm. Waiga, Bintou. “Black in Nicaragua-­My Study Abroad Experience | Bintou Waiga.” February 12, 2018. YouTube video, 17:02. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=lb7FL0M4frs &list=PLWpY8EHJuZozAHs5GFtxK97J_zX0ymK-­A&index=4. Walton, Whitney. Internationalism, National Identities, and Study Abroad: France and the United States, 1890–1970. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009. WannaBeComedydotnet. “CEA Video Contest: A Firenze Friendzy.” February 15, 2008. YouTube video, 10:55. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=Qu44UEDOupw. Wasson, Haidee, and Charles R. Acland. “Introduction: Utility and Cinema.” In Useful Cinema, edited by Charles R. Acland and Haidee Wasson, 1–16. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011. Wasson, Haidee, and Lee Grieveson, eds. Cinema’s Military Industrial Complex. Oakland: University of California Press, 2018. Weitz, Paul, and Chris Weitz. American Pie. Written by Adam Herz. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 1999. Welch, Liz. “The New Travel Dangers.” Cosmopolitan, December 2005, 135–137. West. “African American Travel Represents $63 Billion Opportunity.” December 20, 2018. https://­www​.­einnews​.­com​/­pr​_­news​/­471683673​/­african​-­american​-­travel​-­represents​ -­63​-b­ illion​-­opportunity. West, Nancy Martha. Kodak and the Lens of Nostalgia. Charlottesville: University Press of ­Virginia, 2000.

Bibliography 231 Whitman, James  Q. “Presumption of Innocence or Presumption of Mercy? Weighing Two Western Modes of Justice.” Texas Law Review 94, no. 5 (2016): 933–993. WhoaNelli. “Spain Study Abroad #41 My Spain Homestay Tour.” February 1, 2016. YouTube video, 6:02. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=j4hSWa9Wf0I&list=PLWpY8 EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index=13&t=0s. Williams, Tracy Rundstrom. “Using a PRISM for Reflecting: Providing Tools for Study Abroad Students to Increase Their Intercultural Competence.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29, no. 2 (Fall 2017): 18–34. Wong, Cindy Hing-­Yuk. Film Festivals: Culture, P ­ eople, and Power on the Global Screen. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2011. Wooley, Sarah. “Constantly Connected: The Impact of Social Media and the Advancement in Technology on the Study Abroad Experience.” Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communication 4, no. 2 (2013). http://­www​.­inquiriesjournal​.­com​/­articles​ /­822​/­3​/­constantly​-­connected​-­the​-­impact​-­of​-­social​-­media​-­and​-­the​-­advancement​-­in​ -­technology​-o­ n​-­the​-­study​-­abroad​-­experience. Woolf, Janet. “On the Road Again: Meta­phors of Travel in Cultural Criticism.” Cultural Studies 7, no. 2 (May 1993): 224–239. Woolf, Michael. “Another Mishegas: Global Citizenship.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 19 (Fall/Winter 2010): 52–60. —­—­—. “Impossible ­Things before Breakfast: Myths in Education Abroad.” Journal of Studies in International Education 11, nos. 3–4 (Fall/Winter 2007): 496–509. Wright, Colin. “Postcolonial Cosmopolitanisms: ­Towards a Global Citizenship Education Based on ‘Divisive Universalism.’ ” In Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, edited by Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti and Lynn Mario  T.  M. de Souza, 47–67. New York: Routledge, 2012. Wright, Gwendolyn. “Prescribing the Model Home.” Social Research 58, no.  1 (Spring 1991): 213–225. WWIIPublicDomain. “FBI Training Film: Examination of Soils and Minerals, Hairs and Fibers, Toolmarks, and Tire and Shoe Impressions 1969.” February 1, 2015. YouTube video, 8:57. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=3QLOVOSAJKQ. Xelian, Xelian, “My Homestay in Japan: D.” August 13, 2013. YouTube video, 8:05. https://­ www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=j58fr1rGXi0&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDO psInrYvip&index=42&t=0s. XOXOARIELK. “My Host ­Family’s Apartment Tour [2014] [Spain Edition].” June  3, 2014. YouTube video, 10:13. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=IN4SggtiOCk&list =PLWpY8EHJuZozqVhIWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index=56&t=4s. Zemach-­Bersin, Talya. “Entitled to the World: The Rhe­toric of U.S. Global Citizenship Education and Study Abroad.” In Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education, edited by Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti and Lynn Mario T. M. de Souza, 87–104. New York: Routledge, 2012. —­—­—. “Imperial Pedagogies: Education for American Globalism, 1898–1950.” PhD diss., Yale University, 2015. —­—­—. “Selling the World: Study Abroad Marketing and the Privatization of Global Citizenship.” In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education

232

Bibliography

and the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by Ross Lewin, 303–320. New York: Routledge and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009. Zigmond, Amanda. “My Host F ­ amily’s Gorgeous Home.” July 22, 2011. YouTube video, 3:54. https://­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v=swqjYRl5lro&list=PLWpY8EHJuZozqVh IWsXgQuDOpsInrYvip&index=36&t=1s. Zimmermann, Patricia  R. “The Home Movie Movement: Excavations, Artifacts, Minings.” In Mining the Home Movie: Excavations in Histories and Memories, edited by Karen L. Ishizuka and Patricia R. Zimmermann, 1–28. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. —­—— ­ . Reel Families: A Social History of Amateur Film. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995.

INDEX

Acland, Charles R., 2 aerial view, 9, 13, 41 Africa: 56, 59, 70, 108; North Africa, 44, 69, 133; West Africa, 59 African Americans: and Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 106–107; and mobility, 106, 145; students who identify as, 20, 59, 66, 108–110, 112, 120; and travel, 105–112, 120 (see also ­under travel) airline industry, 6, 174n19 Aitchison, Cara, 155, 159 Alaskan Native students, 20, 108 Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy (Dornheim), 21, 150 American Council for International Studies (ACIS) Video Contest, 27, 39 American Indian students, 20, 108 American Institute for Foreign Study (AIFS) Study Abroad’s Capture the Culture Video Contest, 27, 40, 47–48 American’s Funniest Home Videos (ABC), 28 American study abroad students: 14–15; percentage of minorities, 14 American Textures (Wächter), 53 Andrejevic, Mark, 63–64 Annunziato, Sarah, 148 Arab world, 69, 70, 72, 178n96 Ariely, Gal, 138 armchair travel, 8–9, 50 Asia, 70, 92, 97, 142 Australia, 40, 57, 112–113, 166 Austria, 5, 41, 92, 98 autobiographical films, 4, 31–33, 42, 110 automobile industry, 6, 174n17, 174n19 Bad Girls Club (Oxygen), 56 Barbour, Nancy, 164–165 Beavers, Rachel, 34 Beckman, Karen, 7–8 Belton, John, 12 Benjamin, Stefanie, 107–108 Big ­Brother, global real­ity show, 56–57

­ inder, Perry, 148 B Biressi, Anita, 52 Bishop, Sarah C., 17, 43–44, 88 Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern (The Travel Channel), 13 black students. See also ­under African Americans Black. White. (FX), 58 Bourdain, Anthony, 13 Branciforte, Jillian, 40 Brazil: 101, 113, 120; Rio de Janeiro, 84–85, 87, 99 Brokedown Palace (Kaplan), 160 Brown, Simone, 106 Bu, Liping, 132–134 Burgess, Jean, 120 Bush, George W., 133 Cain, Jordan, 40 Campbell, Sarah, 46 Canada, 101 Candid Camera, 56–57 capitalism, 28, 30, 94 Carpenter, Chelsea, 107–108 Carveth, Rod, 151 casting decisions, 57–58, 60–61, 67–68. See also ­under cultural differences Celebrity House­mates (Nigeria), 57 Chafer, Tony, 103 Chalfen, Richard, 85 Chandra, Sarika, 15 China: 37, 53, 56, 61, 66–69, 71, 73–74, 112–113, 118, 124; Beijing, 35, 74; Hong Kong, 69, 74–75, 112, 117–118; Shanghai, 21, 122, 129–130, 136, 142–143 Chouliaraki, Lilie, 49 CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), 122, 124, 130, 141, 156 cinema: relation to education, 8–9; technology of, 8; as travel machine, 7; usefulness of, 2–3; relation to travel, 6–13, 28, 31–32, 37–40, 160, 168 (see also ­under travel)

233

234

Index

Cinerama, 8–9, 12 Cold War, 12, 127, 132–133, 139 Coleman, James A., 103 collection editing, 37–38, 41, 43 College Hill (BET), 55, 58–60 colonialism, 11, 16, 43–44, 46, 94, 139, 145 Coming Storm, The (Feliu), 145–146 commercial travel narratives, 13, 52; about study abroad students, 3–4, 21–22 Com­pany Man: Protecting Amer­i­ca’s Secrets, The (Feliu), 128–131, 140–146 confession, 32–33, 52, 68, 115. See also self-­disclosure Connecting Our World, 33–34. See also NAFSA consumption: and American students, 43; and American tourist, 11–12, 15, 17, 19, 27–28, 30, 95; and media, 108, 115 Cooper, A.R., 159 Corner, John, 52, 54, 63 Cornwell, Grant H., 138 Costa Rica, 39–40 Couldry, Nick, 49, 115 Council on International Education Exchange (CIEE), 79–80, 83 Crawshaw, Carol, 94 Crossing Borders (Wächter), 19, 53–54, 60–62, 64–66, 68–74, 76–78 Crossing Borders Education, 53–54, 69, 72–73, 76–77 Cuba, 124, 144 cultural authority, 30, 59 cultural differences: and casting decisions, 57–58, 60–61, 67–68, 77–78; and collecting, 95; command of, 11; versus homogeneous vision of world, 44, 46; recognition of, 50, 53, 73, 74–75, 81. See also empathy, and cultural differences Cultural Experiences Abroad (CEA) Study Abroad Video Contest, 27, 39–40 cultural immersion: benefits of, 16–17, 20, 25, 83, 118, 134; versus distanced immersion, 11, 96; and FBI’s concerns, 134–137; fear of, as depicted in films, 3–4; and homestay, 80–83, 88, 118; and language immersion, 80, 134, 136; and social media, 34–35 culture shock, 59, 67–68, 96–97, 104, 113 Czech Republic, 113, 116

Davies, Ian, 138 Deardorff, Darla K., 52 Deery, June, 52, 56, 68–69, 78 Denmark, 85–87 Department of Defense, 126, 133, 139, 144, 145 Deuze, Mark, 28, 30 Devens, Chase, 45 Dialog, The (Wächter), 19, 53–54, 60–62, 64, 67–69, 73–78 Diao, Wenhao, 80, 134 digital humanities, 29 digital technology, 9, 26–27, 28–29, 32, 82–83, 103 Dillette, Alana K, 107–108 diorama, 6 disabled students, 20 Disneyland, 15 diversity: and house-­sharing shows, 58; and stakeholder media, 18, 22; of study abroad students, 20, 22, 109, 167 documentary: and first-­person, 30–33; genres of, 4–5, 152; and homestay videos, 81–82; identity categories, 61, 70, 74, 76; and live-in camera, 65–66; and marketing of study abroad, 18; and real­ity tele­vi­sion, 51–52, 57, 60, 63, 67–68, 70–71, 76; scholarship of, 4–5; about study abroad, 19, 22, 123; style of, 51; and tourism, 38–39 Doerr, Neriko Musha, 43 Dolby, Nadine, 137–138 Douglas, Mary, 84 Dower, Nigel, 16 Dragojlovic, Ana, 153 Eat, Pray, Love (Murphy), 13, 159, Eat, Pray, Love: One ­Woman’s Search for Every­thing across Italy, India, and Indonesia. See Gilbert, Elizabeth Edwards, Leigh H., 68 empathy, and cultural differences, 4, 17, 21, 49, 53, 65, 78, 123, 135, 137–138 ­England: 161; London, 34, 59, 117, 152, 158–159, 161–163 Engle, John and Lilli, 50 En­glish, James F., 29–30, 48 En­glish language, 44, 66, 68, 84, 92 espionage, 122–126, 129–120, 135, 139–140, 143–145

Etzell, Jennifer O., 40 Eu­rope: 6, 12–13, 15, 39, 41, 44, 48, 56, 61, 83, 97, 131, 148, 155–156, 159, 167; repre­sen­ta­ tions of Eu­ro­pe­ans, 24; Western Eu­rope, 44, 69 Eurotrip (Schaffer and Berg), 3 exoticism: of cultural differences, 12–13, 37–38, 39, 41, 88, 95–96; and food, 33 Face of an Angel, The (Winterbottom), 21, 150, 162–164 familialism, 81–83, 87–89, 100 FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), 21, 122–146 fear: of cultural difference, 3–4, 95; and females, 154–155; of missing out, 34; of racism, 107; and study abroad, 46 Feith, Ashley, 34, 40 Feuer, Jane, 151–152, 158 Ficarra, Julie M., 23 film industry, 6 first-­person media, 19, 27, 30–35, 39–45 Flucas, Roderick, 34 foreign policy, 16, 131–132, 134, 144 Four Weddings and a Funeral (Newell), 159 Frain, Maritheresa, 133 France: 1, 113, 156, 166; Paris, 15, 40, 43, 45, 109, 117, 138, 156, 166 Freed, Barbara, 80 ­free ­labor, 28, 49, 121 French in Action, 1–2, 173n2 French Kiss (Kasdan), 159 Freshman Diaries (Showtime), 55 Fright Night II: New Blood (Rodriguez), 4 Frohlick, Susan, 153 Fussell, Paul, 15 Game of Pawns (Feliu), 20–21, 122–131, 134–137, 140–146 Gartenberg, Jon, 8 Geiger, Jeffrey, 32, 39 gender: 11–12, 21, 44, 61, 65, 91, 140, 159–160, 165; and mobility, 145, 153–154, 166–167; and transgender, 114. See also ­under travel: and ­women; travelogue: and ­women Germann Molz, Jennie, 81 Germany, 112 Ghana, 37 Gidget Goes to Rome (Wendkos), 153, 155, 164

Index 235 gift economy, 28, 49. See also f­ ree l­ abor Gilbert, Elizabeth, 165 global awareness, 14, 50, 52–53 global citizenship, 3, 16–18, 21–22, 33–34, 49–50, 53, 72, 123, 131, 137–146 global in­equality, 16, 61, 139 global media, 49–50, 56, 70–71, 73, 77 global mobility: 9–10, 31; inequities of, 43–44, 61, 71, 81, 106, 139, 142–143, 145, 153–154 globalization, 13, 27, 88, 132–133, 138–140, 144 Global South, 39 Golden, Daniel, 124–126 Goodman, Allan, 53 Google Earth’s Voyager, 9 Gore, Joan Elias, 165–167 Grace, Kathryn, 103 Graham, Stephen, 121 Greece, 34, 164 Green, Joshua, 120 Green, Victor, 107–108 Griffiths, Alison, 8–9, 12, 40 Grindstaff, Laura, 76 Groening, Stephen, 9, 13, 39 Grünzweig, Walter, 16, 48, 50 Guilt (Freeform), 21, 150, 158, 160–161 Gunning, Tom, 9–10, 11, 44 Guthrie, Kate, 40 Hair Nah (Momo Pixel), 105–107 Harris, Kandace L., 115 Harris-­Lacewell, Melissa Victoria, 115 Hawes, Colin S., 76 Hay, James, 55, 57–58 Hearn, Alison, 76 Heron, Barbara, 144 Hill, Annette, 63, 78 Hofer et al., 103 Hoffa, William W., 42, 131 Holiday in the Sun (Purcell), 156 Holt, Jennifer, 25 home movies, 4, 19–20, 38, 40, 89, 100–102 homesickness, 68, 118, 166 homestay: 14, 18–19, 45, 118, 123; and movies, 18–20, 34, 79–104 Hoover, J. Edgar, 126–127 Hostel I and II (Roth), 4, 160 host ­family, 19, 80–81, 84–103

236

Index

House Hunters (HGTV), 89–91 Hovey, Rebecca, 137–138 Howe, Maija, 38 Humphreys, Lee, 115, 121 IMAX, 8–9, 12–13, 39, 40–41 immersion. See cultural immersion immigrants, 10, 33, 46 imperialism, 13, 14, 45, 145 Institute of International Education (IIE), and Generation Study Abroad Voices Video Challenge, 27, 36 Institute for the International Education of Students (IES) Study Abroad Film Festival, 27, 31, 34–35, 39–40, 45–48, 84, 99 intercultural communication, 3–4, 16, 19, 24, 52–54, 62–63, 66 international students, at American universities, 24, 178n98 International Studies Abroad (ISA) Student Video Contest, 27, 31, 40, 47 intimacy, 51, 55, 58, 60, 68, 77, 114–115 Ireland: The New Convention Country (Monk), 38–39 Islam. See Muslims Israel, 144 Italy: 21, 118, 153, 157–161, 165; Bologna, 148; ­legal system of, 147–148; Milan, 113, 120; Perugia, 113, 147–148, 158, 160; Rome, 5–6, 31, 153, 155, 156; Sicily, 117 I Witness Video (NBC), 28 Japan, 39, 92–98 Jefferess, David, 16, 144 Jenkins, Henry, 115 Jersey Shore (MTV), 56 Jessup-­Anger, Jody, 165 Johnson, Vincent R., 168 Jordan, Fiona, 154–155, 159 Jungle Headhunters (Cotlow), 12 Kavka, Misha, 55–58, 63 ­Kenya, 59 Kercher, Meredith, 21, 147–150, 160–161, 164 Killick, David, 137–138 Kirby, Lynne, 7, 23, 155 Klerk, Nico de, 88–89

Knox, Amanda, 21, 147–140, 152, 157, 160–161, 163–164, 168, 177n87 Knoxudramas, 21–22, 147, 150–152, 157, 168 Kong, Shuyu, 76 ­Korea, 56, 60, 74, 94, 97–99, 101–102, 112–113, 177n87 Kraidy, Marwan M., 69–70 language: and acquisition, 44, 80, 103, 118, 133, 135; and barriers, 59, 68 Lansford, Jack, 40 Lawrence, Karen R., 153 Lebow, Alisa, 33 Lewin, Ross, 14 Lipkin, Stephen N., 150–152 Living Soap, The (BBC), 55 Lizzie McGuire Movie, The (Fall), 5–6, 156, 164 locals, 15, 37, 40–41, 45, 113, 120, 135 Maguire, Emma, 110 Mali, 84 Malveaux, Gregory F., 126, 168 Mamma Mia! (Lloyd), 164 Marston, Kendra, 159–160 Martin, Kevin W., 12 Matchmaker, The ( Joffe), 160 McGuire, Lizzie, 5–6, 156, 164 McKinney, Jill, 165 media literacy, 19, 27 ­Middle East, 56, 70–71, 133, 145 Middleton, Jason, 51 Mikal, Jude P., 103 Miller, Brandon, 114 mise-­en-­scène, 3, 8, 15, 158 Moran, James, M., 83, 100 Morocco, 40, 53, 60, 62, 64–65, 71–72, 74, 76, 79, 83, 87 Morris, Meaghan, 153 Muslims, 61, 69, 70–73, 127 Naficy, Hamid, 100 NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 27, 33, 124–125, 132, 173n9 narcissism: in study abroad videos, 45, 48–49; and visions of the world, 27 National Counterintelligence and Security Center (ONCIX), 21, 122, 124 nationalism, 12–13, 16, 138, 145

Negra, Diane, 159–160 Negro Travelers’ Green Book, The. See Green, Victor Nerenberg, Ellen, 149 Neumann, Mark, 38, 47 New Horizons, travel series, 38 New York Times, 27, 36–37, 148 New Zealand, 40, 111, 166 Nicaragua, 117 Nichols, Bill, 51 Nollywood (the Nigerian film industry), 36 Notting Hill (Michell), 160 Nummer 28 (Holland), 55 Nunn, Heather, 52 Odin, Roger, 82 Olsen, Mary Kate and Ashley, 156–157, 164 O’Mara, Margaret, 132 ONCIX. See National Counterintelligence and Security Center One Ocean View (AVC and CTV), 56 Only You ( Jewison), 159 Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange, 14, 108–109 Orgeron, Devin, 32, 83 Ouellette, Laurie, 28, 55, 57–58 Paget, Derek, 151–152 Pan American Airlines, 6, 38 panoramic perception, 6, 10, 37, 38, 40 Parris Springer, John, 150 Parts Unknown (CNN), 13 Passport to Paris (Metter), 156 Penton, Alexa, 35 Perren, Alisa, 25 Peterson, Jennifer, 9–12, 37, 39, 44–47 Pettman, Dominic, 54 phantom ­ride, 8–10, 37–40 Pike, Graham, 138 Piscitelli, Adriana, 153 point-­of-­view shot, 9, 37–38, 40 Poletti, Anna, 110 propaganda, 12, 131 predeparture, 4, 54, 125, 168 Rabinovitz, Lauren, 8 racism, 106–108, 112–113, 119, 145

Index 237 railroad industry, 6–7 Rak, Julie, 110 Rascaroli, Laura, 32 real­ity tele­vi­sion: conventions of, 19, 51–53, 56, 60, 62–63, 64, 73, 89; in a global context, 55–56, 69–71, 76–78; and house-­sharing model, 19, 54–60, 63–43, 76–77; and intercultural encounters, 66–69, 185n13; and intimate strangers subgenre, 57–58, 61; popularity of, 32; and study abroad, 4, 52–55 Real World, The (MTV), 55, 57, 58, 63 Renov, Michael, 32–33 Rhodes, Gary D., 150 Rinehart, Nana, 16, 48, 50 Road Rules (MTV), 55–56, 58–60, 63 Robertson, Alexa, 49 Roommate (South ­Korea), 56 Roscoe, Jane, 151–152 Rose, Gillian, 22 Ross, Sara, 9 Ruoff, Jeffrey, 5, 8, 38 Rus­sia, 124, 152 safari film genre, 38–39, 41 Savicki, Victor, 103 Scannell Guida, Denise, 149 Schattle, Hans, 137 Schivelbusch, Wolfgang, 7 Seed, Patricia, 100 self-­disclosure, 32–33, 63, 65, 77, 114. See also confession Sender, Katherine, 70 Seven Year Switch (fyi.tv), 55 sexism, 1–2, 113, 145, 173n1 sexual awakening, 13 Shandley, Robert R., 13, 159 Shand, Ryan, 36 Shimpach, Shawn, 89–91 Shipwrecked (Channel 4), 57 Shriver, Glenn Duffie, 21, 122, 125–131, 136–137, 140–143 Siegel, Kristi, 153, 155 Silverstone, Roger, 49 Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, The (Kwapis), 164 60 Days In (A&E), 56 Smith, David, 45 Smith, Leigh, 80 Smith, Sidonie, 153–155

238

Index

social media: and Amanda Knox, 147, and black community, 110, 115; and connecting to home, 15, 34, 103; and identity, 110, 114; and information, 108, 135, 121; and marketing, 28, 121; and transgender community, 114; and use while abroad, 34, 103, 118 Solnit, Rebecca, 154 South Africa: 59, 111; Cape Town, 46 Spain: 40, 93, 98, 112–114; Barcelona, 37, 113, 117, 120; Madrid, 46, 112 Spigel, Lynn, 140 stakeholders, of study abroad industry, 3, 16, 18–19, 22, 26, 34, 35, 43, 123, 134, 151; and mediation, 80–81 Stallard, Elisabeth, 37 Staples, Amy J., 38 State Department. See U.S. Department of State ste­reo­types: of American study abroad students, 108, 116–117, 178n97; and gender, 166; and intercultural encounters, 3; of foreign exchange students, 24, 75, 108; of tourists, 15, 42; of the United States, 132 Stoddard, Eve W., 138 Strain, Ellen, 11, 13–14, 15, 50, 94–97 Strangelove, Michael, 28, 82, 87, 101 study abroad: as academic experience, 43, 137; and advertising, 17, 42–43, 88–89; commercial repre­sen­ta­tions of, 3–4, 21; critical perspectives on, 16, 23, 43, 48, 50, 167; and gender, 21–22, 149, 151, 155, 166–167, 176n86; goals of, 18–19, 27, 81, 110, 113, 143; ideologies of, 2–3, 16, 22, 81; and media, 2–3, 23, 27, 28, 30–33, 50; mission and values of, 2–3, 16–17, 33–34, 43, 123; and personal transformation, 16–17, 43, 70, 88; practices of, 3, 23, 134, 136; and real­ity tele­vi­sion, 52–55; risks of, 21–22, 35, 106, 124, 126, 134, 151, 155, 167–168; and second language acquisition, 44, 118 study abroad gaze, 15, 19, 27, 33, 42, 45, 104. See also tourist gaze study abroad industry: 2–3, 18–19, 26–30, 33–35, 42–44, 46–50, 103, 106, 109, 112, 121, 123, 151, 167–168; and film-­induced tourism, 165 study abroad video contest: 18–19, 24, 26–31, 33–37, 39–50, 121; and awards, 31–33, 45, 50; conventions of, 39–41; and cultural

authority, 30; and marketing, 47; and pop ­music, 41, 43, 45, 47–48 Summertime (Lean), 13 superiority, sense of, 12, 66, 144 surveillance, 40, 53, 57, 63–66, 69, 83, 106 Suspira (Argento and Guadagnino), 4, 160 Sweeney, Karyn, 110 Take Her, She’s Mine (Koster), 3, 153, 155 Taken (Morel), 156–157 Talvitie-­Lamberg, Karoliina, 115 technology: 6–9, 27, 32, 39, 49, 82–83, 103; of moving image, 6–8, 37; and role in students’ lives, 24, 26, 28, 40–41 Terrace House (Netflix and Fuji TV), 56 Terranova, Tiziana, 28 terrorism, 71–73, 126, 132–133 Testa, Courtney, 34 Thomas, M’Balia, 109 Three Coins in the Fountain (Negulesco), 13 Tomlinson, John, 49 Totten, Gary, 106 tourism: 2, 5–6, 8–9, 11–12, 42, 94, 96, 165; industry of, 15, 37, 47, 107; mediation of, 50 tourist gaze, 11–14, 38, 44–45, 50, 81, 94–97, 104. See also study abroad gaze tourists: and experience, 102; and point of view, 10–11, 37, 46; ste­reo­type of, 15; in study abroad videos, 41; versus travelers, 15; Trader Horn (Van Dyke), 12 trains, 7, 37, 108, 155 travel: 2, 5, 14–15, 23–24, 46, 70, 96; and black Americans, 105–121; and cinema, 6–13, 17, 28, 31–32, 37–40, 160, 168; industry of, 6, 107; mediation of, 23, 50, 94; and safety of study abroad, 35; and students, 20–21, 28–30, 33, 50, 60, 80, 95, 102; tropes of, 13–14, 37, 39, 47; and ­women, 22 (see also ­under gender: and mobility; travelogue: and ­women). See also virtual travel travelogue: 4, 6, 8, 33; conventions of, 19, 38–40, 43–44, 47–48, 50; and cultural prestige, 10; early history of, 11–12, 32, 37–41, 43, 44–46; and educational documentaries, 61; and students, 19, 27; and study abroad videos, 37, 47; and ­women, 150–151, 153–154, 159–160, 164–165

(see also ­under gender: and mobility; travel: and ­women) Trentman, Emma, 134 Turner, Graeme, 77–78 Tzanelli, Rodanthi, 165 ­Under the Tuscan Sun (Wells), 13, 159 University of Redlands, 1 Urry, John, 11, 94 U.S. Department of State, 17, 122, 130–131, 136 useful media, 2–4, 18–19, 22, 24, 26–27, 29, 110, 151 vio­lence, 12, 60, 71–72, 84, 106–107, 149, 155 virtual travel, 8–9, 11, 14, 95, 165 vlogs, 4, 19, 20, 80, 93, 98, 105, 108–109, 111–121 Walton, Whitney, 166 Warmbier, Otto, 177n87 Wasson, Haidee, 2 Weinberg, Adam, 137–138

Index 239 West, Nancy Martha, 10 When in Rome (Purcell), 156 widescreen formats, 8. See also IMAX, Cinerama Wife Swap (ABC), 55–56 Winning London (Shapiro), 3 Winter Break: Hunter Mountain (MTV), 57 Wolff, Janet, 154 Wong, Cindy Hing–­Yuk, 35–37 Woolf, Michael, 139 Wright, Colin, 16 Wright, Gwendolyn, 84 YouTube: and algorithms, 119–120; and amateur video production, 28, 32, 39, 101–102; and audiences, 87–89, 118; and FBI, 127, 146; and homestays, home movies, and vlogs, 80, 82–83, 93, 95, 101, 108, 111–112, 114; and prohibited ­music, 48 Zemach-­Bersin, Talya, 16, 17, 24, 43, 88, 131, 139, 143 Zimmerman, Patricia R., 38, 81–82, 89, 102

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kelly Hankin is a professor of film studies in the Johnston Center for

I­ ntegrative Studies at the University of Redlands. She is the author of The Girls in the Back Room: Looking at the Lesbian Bar (2002) and numerous articles on the intersections between gender, sexuality, and media.