Area studies is fundamentally about the in-depth, contextualized study of specific world regions—drawing on insights from history, politics, language, culture, and more. 

Yet, as Ulf Brunnbauer, University of Regensburg (UR), Director of the Regensburg Leibniz ScienceCampus (LSC) and the Leibniz Institute for East and Southeast European Studies (IOS), humorously remarked during his welcome address at the 2025 Regensburg LSC conference Navigating Epistemic, Cultural, and Legal Translations: Processes, Hierarchies, Spaces: “You can’t really define it, but you recognize it when you see it.”

As Timothy Nunan, Professor for Transregional Cultures of Knowledge at the University of Regensburg’s Department for Intercultural and Multiscalar Area Studies (DIMAS), noted during the opening evening of the conference, “we all know that every country (indeed, every institution) has its own distinct traditions for how to ‘do’ area studies.”

Grounded in the belief that cross-boundary understanding requires both rigorous scholarship and interpretive sensitivity, the discussion explored Area Studies as a form of translation, navigating between knowledge systems, worldviews, and institutional settings.

Knowledge, Culture and Law across Societies and Spaces

The panel on April 23 was conceived by the conference organizing team, Anne Brüske and Cindy Wittke , together with Rike Krämer-Hoppe, Jochen Mecke and Dagmar Schmelzer. Navigating Epistemic, Cultural, and Legal Translations: Processes, Hierarchies, Spaces: 2025 International conference of the Regensburg Leibniz ScienceCampus to launch the second funding phase until 2028, Press Release, April, 24

Area Studies as the Art and Science of Translation

Nunan was joined on the panel by Marianne Braig (Freie Universitaet Berlin), Jan Hornát (Charles University Prague), Claudia Kraft (University of Vienna), and Beatrice Schuchardt (University of Regensburg)—a group of scholars working across diverse national and disciplinary contexts. Notably, both Claudia Kraft and Timothy Nunan drew on experiences shaped by pursuing academic careers outside their countries of birth, further illustrating the transregional dimensions of Area Studies today. (Nunan is originally from the United States of America, while Kraft hails from Germany.)

Often, remarked Nunan at the beginning of the conversation, scholars imagine academia as an “open global commons.” In reality, however, national divides matter. Scholarship, Nunan explained, “has many national peculiarities, both in terms of epistemology (i. e. how topics become deemed as worthy of research, or scientific) and in terms of practice (i. e. how do scholars actually do their work, and who ends up having the authority to make scholarly claims).”

I

To start the discussion, Nunan asked: “What does the term ‘translation’ mean for you in your research on area studies? How do some of the actors or objects you study exemplify acts of translation, whether of concepts or practices?”

The panelists’ responses soon revealed a shared understanding that key concepts are on the move and that in the course of traveling they are translated and re-translated.

Jan Hornát, a senior researcher at Peace Research Center Prague and a Head of the Department of North American Studies at the Institute of International Studies at Charles University reflected on the work in Prague and other Czech universities: Researchers and scholars have to act in different roles; moreover, they need to translate their findings to appeal to different audiences. Being an academic requires juggling these three responsibilities: teaching, research, and outreach. However, students, scholars, and the general audience constitute “three worlds”, Hornát explains, “each have different sorts and types of translation”.

Academia expects a pristine and exact language, but “it gets a little bit trickier when you address the general public, when you have to generalize a little bit to make it more accessible”. That their department with eight researchers made 400 media appearances within the last year “impels us to reflect on how we translate why are the things that are happening in the US happening and how it affects us”, Hornát said.

Hornát also emphasized the political incentives to establish the institute in the 1990s.  At that time, Central European countries felt the need to become part of the international community involving Western Europe and the US again, he commented. As such, Czech academia prioritized the study of Western Europe and the United States.

Marianne Braig, Professor of Political Science at the Institute for Latin American Studies at Freie Universität Berlin, briefly outlined how in Western Europe, area studies fields including Islamwissenschaften or West African Studies emerged from the dual legacies of colonialism and pluralism.

Braig’s own institution was founded in the 1970s, following the earlier example of the John F. Kennedy Institute at FU Berlin in 1963. “At that time, during the Cold War, the focus was on understanding global powers like the US, the UK, and France, as well as ideological others—particularly communists and leftists”. Interestingly, many of the scholars involved were themselves left-leaning, Braig reflected.

Her institute became a hub for refugees and exiles from Latin America. “For my generation and the next, this meant engaging directly with people from across the Americas. We had to listen and learn—from totally unfamiliar cultures, languages, academic traditions. It was a deeply cultural experience.” Therefore translation—both literal and conceptual—was central: “Could we truly understand the others? Could we really hear them?”

Claudia Kraft, Professor for Contemporary History, and a Head of Department at the University of Vienna, elaborated on the personal and intellectual challenges of integrating Eastern European historiography with global and postcolonial approaches. Her academic background was shaped in the late 1980s while studying in Marburg, a center of Ostforschung —“with a very political and almost imperialistic style of looking at the Eastern territories of Europe, treated as borderlands between Germany and Russia, with a particular focus on German-Russian relations”.

Later, upon receiving her first professorship in Erfurt, Kraft joined a newly established center for global and regional studies, taking a position in East European history. This transition was particularly challenging: she found herself having to "translate" her personal academic background into conversations with global historians—colleagues working on North America or Latin America, Vietnam, or the Middle East—who were well versed in postcolonial theory.

However, over time, the legacy of Ostforschung became less of a burden. Today, the scholar appreciates “the in-betweenness of concepts”. She is still navigating conceptual tensions, she noted, engaging now in debates around "post-dependency", a term she considers more appropriate than "postcolonial" in certain contexts.

Beatrice Schuchardt began her contribution by offering an overview of the phenomenon of German Romance studies, which typically engage with at least two Roman languages and cultures. Schuchardt, Chair of Spanish and French Cultural and Literary Studies at UR, understands translation as an obligation that always involves negotiation gaps and blind spots. It is important, she stressed, that scholars recognize these while addressing the materiality of language and media.

Schuchardt acknowledged that fully capturing or completely understanding another culture is never possible. In her view, the concept of "understanding the other" is inherently limited: Language, like the other, is never entirely translatable, never fully accessible, nor completely legible, i.e. offering complete comprehension. In conclusion, Schuchardt stressed a critical point: while scholars often study how others are constructed, they must also question how their own frameworks and scholarly practices reproduce otherness.

Conclusion

Translation is not just a linguistic task. It involves complex, often political, and cultural negotiation. Translation is not a one-time act, but an ongoing, critical process that shapes both knowledge production and cross-cultural understanding in Area Studies. 

II

What happens if we think of translation not only in relation to individual words or concepts? “We might broaden the concept to think of it with regards to your social practices, your teaching, aesthetics, political cultures, music, or dance”, Nunan suggested, inviting the panelists to rethink the role of translation in area studies more extensively.

An intriguing question, as Jan Hornát showed, commenting on how area studies in communist Czechoslovakia were serving “Communist ideology in decolonized Africa”. Ultimately, though, research “was not focused on the other but on analyzing the future us, who we want to be.” Scholarship, he argued, reflected broader practices within Czech society of figuring out how our mindsets, our society, our politics were changing.

However, “how we teach, has been significantly changing in the last two to three decades”, Hornát said. “Particularly in academia we have adapted and mimicked the Anglo-Saxon approaches. Our universities are obsessed with that, and so are funding schemes of our Ministry of Education.” This has also percussions on research, including conducting research in the Czech language.

“There was a need to mimic the societies that we want to be part of”, Hornát remarked, “as we still consider ourselves as the junior partners. We are trying to lose the status of some ‘other’, even if we consider ourselves as members of the club of the West but still in the position of not being part of it.” Despite the shift in approaches and frameworks, area studies continues to provide coordinates for negotiating a transforming world.

Marianne Braig brought in human rights as a powerful example of how translation operates on a global scale: The same foundational texts can be interpreted differently depending on cultural, political, or historical contexts.

Claudia Kraft elaborated this point, stressing the tension between abstract legal principles and the situated nature of human rights claims. Reflecting on the origins of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Kraft pointed out that it emerged not from the ideals of the French Revolution or Enlightenment, but from the trauma of the Holocaust.

The discussion emphasized that universal principles like human rights are not pure or abstract but are always shaped by people in specific historical and cultural contexts, with area studies, with its emphasis on context-specific knowledge, thus ideally placed to translate and navigate the specificities of apparently universal legal or normative frameworks.

Beatrice Schuchardt emphasized that translation is never neutral but deeply embedded in structures of power. In her research, she investigates how 18th-century economic theory was translated into Spanish theater, making abstract policy intelligible to the public. She extends this thinking to literature, film, and comics, which serve as mediums for translating complex or traumatic human experiences. Visual and narrative choices—what is said, what is omitted—become acts of interpretation.

Schuchardt also connects this to the broader role of literature and art in translating human experiences—especially extreme or traumatic ones—such as through film or comics. In these forms, gaps, visuals, and narrative choices become crucial. Reflecting on her current lecture series on comics and graphic novels about déplacement (engl. displacement, germ. Deplatzierung or Ortswechsel), Schuchardt highlighted a central ethical and political question: Who has the authority to translate and interpret? And on what grounds—universalist or otherwise—are these interpretations legitimized?

Conclusion

Translation is not just about bridging difference—it is about negotiating power, identity, and legitimacy across space and time. Translation emerges as a dynamic process embedded in historical legacies, ideological shifts, legal frameworks, and cultural practices.

III

Nunan framed his third question to the panelists by suggesting: “As scholars based in Western Europe, we often work within frameworks that rely on institutions or epistemic structures which may not (yet) exist in the same way in other parts of the world, such as in Europe or the United States.” Considering the transformations of the global order, he asked: “Do you think that the current trend toward de-globalization is accompanied by a form of epistemic de-globalization, and if so, is it becoming increasingly difficult—or perhaps even impossible—to translate knowledge or engage in dialogue across geopolitical divides?”

This question of cross-cultural engagement resonated with Jan Hornát, who traced the complexity of the idea that we are heading toward epistemic de-globalization. He argued that translation—especially across geopolitical and cultural divides—is growing more difficult even as discourses are imported from other regions, again reflecting his comments on mimicry. 

He drew on the example of localized culture wars, which frequently borrow terms and concepts from transatlantic debates. These imported discourses often fail to resonate in local contexts like the Czech Republic, where linguistic and conceptual translations prove challenging.

Hornát pointed to his own field of American studies as an example. Concepts central to U.S. discourse—particularly around race, identity, or political correctness—are often difficult to convey to non-American, e. g. Czech audiences. This goes beyond buzzwords like “wokeism,” or “cancel culture,” or practices related to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). Even seemingly broad concepts such as “liberalism” have undergone notable shifts, away from its formerly economic connotations, Hornát reflected. “Now it’s increasingly associated with progressive, American-style politics, which causes confusion in public discourse.”

Historically, though such conceptual disconnects are “not new”, Hornát noted. During the Cold War, Eastern and Western Europeans already held divergent understandings of ideals like “freedom of speech,” a situation that echoed in US Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the 2025 Munich Security Conference. Vance criticized European restrictions on free speech—highlighting how even supposedly universal values can be perceived very differently across regions.

Yet despite these tensions, Hornát also sees signs of hope. He noted that American scholars are increasingly curious about Eastern European perspectives—particularly in relation to political developments shaping the Trump era. As a result, public dialogue in the Czech Republic has become more dynamic, and this discursive richness may serve as the foundation for new epistemological frameworks.

What does epistemic de-globalization mean?

 Epistemic de-globalization refers to the process or trend of reversing, resisting, or decentering the global dominance of certain knowledge systems—particularly Western, Euro-American, or colonial epistemologies—in favor of more localized, plural, or situated ways of knowing.
 

Perspective, then, is key. “It’s essential to see the world from different points of view”, said Marianne Braig. If you want to understand globalization, “changing perspective is part of it,” a process that translation is crucial to. “We need to build relationships across cultures and ways of thinking—and for that, translation matters more than ever.”

She illustrated her point with the example of Jürgen Habermas’s Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Though published in 1961 and quickly translated into French and Spanish, it wasn’t until 1989 that it appeared in English. Only then did The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere spark major discussion in the Anglophone academic world. “Suddenly, it was treated as a new discovery,” Braig remarked. “So when and where something is translated can deeply shape how it's received.”

A similar trajectory occurred in France with the delayed embrace of postcolonial theory, particularly figures like Homi Bhabha. Suddenly it became a hot topic—years after it had been debated elsewhere, Schuchardt noted. Likewise, Jan and Aleida Assmann’s memory theory, a central academic reference in Germany during the 1990s, only later gained traction elsewhere, partly because of the work of Michael Rothberg around the turn of the 2010s.

Claudia Kraft reflected on the shift in speed of knowledge circulation, making discussions of de-globalization more complex today. “We live in a time when knowledge spreads incredibly quickly—constantly reshaped and reinterpreted through media,” she said. This fast-paced circulation complicates efforts to process global intellectual currents, let alone “unplug” from them.

Beatrice Schuchardt echoed this, arguing that epistemic de-globalization is more of an illusion. “It suggests we could somehow detach ourselves from processes that have been unfolding for decades or centuries—but that’s not so easy,” she said.

Indeed, epistemic de-globalization might not be desirable. The diverse trajectories and chronologies of translations of key analytical concepts and ideas offer an illustration of the importance of academic communication across boundaries. “Universities today are under pressure—financially and politically”, Schuchardt noted with reference to the situation in the U.S., “and questions of neutrality are being tested.” Rather than withdraw, scholars must continue striving to make their work accessible and relevant. “We shouldn’t give up. As a panel, we’re really interested in what the audience thinks —that’s important to us.”

Conclusion

Translation is both a method and a mindset—and perhaps the most vital tool we have for engaging across worlds. In an era shaped by rapid circulation of ideas and resurging populist pressures, scholarly work must remain sensitive to historical context, open to reinterpretation, and committed to dialogue across difference.

Share your insights and views on Timothy Nunan's other questions

1 Everyone is familiar with the expression “lost in translation” (in der Übersetzung verloren gegangen). What is one key concept or term that figures prominently in your work that is difficult to translate into English or German? Are there terms you encounter that you think could enrich our common working vocabulary in Euro-American area studies?

2 How have recent key concepts or terms (e.g., Anthropocene, (de)globalization, polarization, whiteness, populism) been "translated" into the contexts you work in? Conversely, are there key terms or concepts that hold significant attention in your scholarly environment but seem to have less relevance elsewhere in the world?

3 The “who” of translation is often obscured by the “what” of translation. When it comes to the topics you study, who has historically performed act of translations? How has their social status, their identity, their relationship to languages, etc. affected the final message? Likewise, in your working context today, how is translation performed? How is it remunerated, and what is its social status relative to research or teaching? Likewise, how has the rise of LLMs [Large Language Models] affected the work of translation you and colleagues do?

 

 

Comments

No Comments

Write comment

* These fields are required