Translating International Relations: On the Practical Difficulties of Diversifying the Discipline
| Author | Kerry Goettlich,Sarah Bertrand,Christopher Murray |
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829817742838 |
| Published date | 01 January 2018 |
| Date | 01 January 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817742838
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2018, Vol. 46(2) 93 –95
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829817742838
journals.sagepub.com/home/mil
1. The most famous reference is Stanley Hoffmann, ‘An American Social Science: International
Relations’, Daedalus 106, no. 3 (1977): 41–60. For an overview of the literature on this
theme, see for instance Peter Marcus Kristensen, ‘Revisiting the “American Social Science”
– Mapping the Geography of International Relations’, International Studies Perspectives 16,
no. 3 (2015): 246–69.
2. See for instance Arlene Tickner and Ole Waever, International Relations Scholarship Around
the World: Worlding Beyond the West (New York: Routledge, 2009); Jörg Friedrichs, European
Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions (London:
Routledge, 2004); Knud Erik Jørgensen and Tonny Brems Knudsen, eds., International
Relations in Europe. Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations (London: Routledge, 2006);
Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, Non-Western International Relations Theory. Perspectives
On and Beyond Asia (New York: Routledge, 2010).
3. See for instance Vineet Thakur, Alexander E. Davis, and Peter Vale, ‘Imperial Mission,
"Scientific" Method: an Alternative Account of the Origins of IR’, Millennium: Journal of
International Studies 46, no. 1 (2017): 3–23.
4. Peter M. Kristensen, ‘Dividing Discipine: Structures of Communication in International
Relations’, International Studies Review 14, no. 1 (2012): 32–50.
Translating International
Relations: On the Practical
Difficulties of Diversifying the
Discipline
The discipline of International Relations long has been identified and characterized as
‘American’ or ‘Anglo-American’.1 While recent work contests this assumption, either by
giving a platform to different types of ‘regional IR’,2 or by bringing to light the intercon-
nected colonial origins of the discipline,3 the discipline of International Relations remains
dominated by US-based journals, scholars, and top-ranked programmes.4 The fact that
all of this work is produced and carried out in the English language underpins and sup-
ports the US dominance in the field.
What are the effects of such a dominant linguistic perspective in the academy? While
a unified lingua franca plays a crucial and positive role in enabling and fostering aca-
demic exchange across linguistic boundaries, its dominance also raises a number of
issues. First is the question of accessibility: scholarship predominantly carried out in
English will remain closed to anyone who cannot speak or read the language well. Given
742838MIL0010.1177/0305829817742838Millennium: Journal of International StudiesEditorial
editorial2018
Editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial