Writing histories of world literature was, for the longest time, an almost exclusively European, or in any case Western, enterprise. Moreover, it was overwhelmingly centred on European, or again Western, literature. To do away with such Eurocentrism was the avowed aim of the project upon which an international set of literary scholars embarked in 2006, and which resulted in the four-volume Literature: A World History published in 2022. In the articles to follow, five scholars (Pettersson, Trivedi, Utas, Zhang, D’haen) directly involved with the project look back on their experience and reflect on the pros and cons, the successes and the failures, the achievements and the shortcomings, of the enterprise. As counterbalance, six scholars (Ette, Hajdu, Hawas, He, Larsen, Rydholm) not involved with the project reflect on the (im)possibilities of writing world histories of literature.

Academic freedom is founded on two fundamental principles: professional autonomy and the public good. These dual foundations are necessarily in tension with each other. Academic freedom is not a civil right, as is freedom of speech, nor is it an individual employment benefit provided to those in a restricted number of academic appointments. It is, instead, a freedom belonging to the academic profession collectively to pursue inquiry and teach freely, limited and guided by the principles of that profession and of a scholar’s respective disciplines. Academic freedom guarantees both faculty members and students the right to engage in intellectual inquiry and debate without fear of censorship or retaliation. It grants considerable scope to the consciences of individual teachers and researchers, but functions ultimately as the collective freedom of the scholarly community to govern itself in the interest of serving the common good in a democratic society. Academic freedom must protect not only independent research and classroom teaching, but a scholar’s expression as a citizen of both the university and the broader polity. Hence, to thrive, academic freedom depends on a democratic and constitutional system that guarantees the rule of law. Academic freedom has always been contested and vulnerable, to be sure, but in recent years it has faced a series of escalating challenges almost everywhere, amounting to a major crisis. In this context, calls for ‘institutional neutrality’ must be critically examined.

Most literary histories with a global ambition attempt to map the world, often tilted toward a European/Western perspective and written as a teamwork by individual experts on a variety of regions – and maybe originating from those regions – each of them taking responsibility for their own linguistic and regional specialty. Often, the regional or local chapters offer few new insights for readers from that region, but useful insights for people from other parts of the world. A project along those lines follows what I will call a mapping strategy, which often leaves out an idea or a concept of what ‘world’ means in this context apart from the sum total of separate localities. This is, however, a necessary conceptualization which allows for a rethinking and rewriting of literary history, leading it in new directions beyond the aim of achieving global coverage. This article attempts to sketch an alternative to the mapping strategy.

This article investigates the evolving dynamics of global scientific production and collaboration from 2000 to 2022, focusing on the impact of geopolitical changes on academic freedom and international research collaboration. Historically dominated by Western liberal democracies, the global scientific landscape has seen a significant shift with the rise of emerging economies, particularly within the BRICS group. This transition reflects broader changes in wealth distribution and scientific output, with China emerging as the largest scientific system. The analysis employs bibliometric indicators and political metrics, including the V-Dem’s Liberal Democracy Index and the Academic Freedom Index, to assess changes in scientific output, academic freedom, and international collaboration. Results reveal a decline in academic freedom and liberal democracy in major science-producing countries, coinciding with increased scientific output from nations with lower academic freedoms. The study also examines international collaboration patterns, highlighting a shift away from traditional Western partners towards increased collaboration within the BRICS group. This shift is particularly evident in the growing partnerships between China, India and Russia. Despite the increased scientific output from these countries, Western countries, particularly the USA and European nations, remain pivotal in global scientific networks. In summary, the findings suggest a move towards a more multipolar scientific world, where the balance of power is shifting away from traditional Western hegemony. However, this shift comes with significant challenges, particularly concerning the erosion of academic freedom in many of the expanding scientific regions.

‘No nation has produced more anthologies or collections of women’s poetry than late imperial China’, according to Kang-i Sun Chang. Indeed, the open-access database of Ming–Qing Women’s Writings at McGill University Library includes 5239 women writers and 431 poetry collections. Yet virtually no trace of this phenomenon, or of these women writers, can be found in transcultural literary histories and anthologies of world literature published in the West in the twentieth century and beyond. How is this possible? The reason is not simply the lack of translations of many of the poems, but rather it has to do with the lack of canonization of these women poets in Chinese literary history until the late twentieth century, when they were ‘rediscovered’. This article investigates this neglect with the aim of showing that there were several different reasons for it, related to poetics, genre hierarchies, anthology editing practices, etc., in the imperial era, and to aspects of Chinese literary historiography in the twentieth century. Two women ci poets, Liu Shi and Qiu Jin, are briefly introduced to show that the reasons for their exclusion, as well as their later inclusion in the national literary canon, also need to be addressed on an individual level.

The tendency to dismiss history in favour of close reading by twentieth-century British critics has cast a long shadow over critical practice. Yet the tendency to revere a formalist, a-historical, even a-political critical method primarily for its own sake seems to be singularly strong in English studies. This somewhat self-isolating tendency has not, for example, appeared as a noteworthy part of critical practice in comparative literature. Of course, the two fields have built up over time a mutual suspicion of each other’s critical methods, though it wasn’t just about the necessity of multilingualism but also about the value of history.

Macro-financial stability plays a crucial role amidst global crises and can significantly impact the economic security of European Union members. It is crucial to have sufficient resources to address macroeconomic challenges since economic vulnerability can worsen risks, threats and instability, ultimately resulting in greater inequality. The article aims to investigate the influence of EU macro-financial stability on the economic security among EU member states with different development levels. Indicators that serve as the foundation for assessing the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) have been chosen for studying the economic security of advanced, emerging, and developing economies within the EU. Studies utilizing correlation and regression analysis have revealed an interconnection between the EU’s macro-financial stability and its member countries’ economic indicators. This correlation is found to be significant regardless of the country’s level of development. The findings highlight the vulnerability of national economies to macro-financial shocks within the EU and the potential adverse effects on the economic security of member countries. Insights into the impact of macro-financial stability on economic security help identify destructive trends and risks arising from macro-financial destabilization, proving beneficial to EU members and countries aspiring to EU membership. The novelty lies in establishing the link between financial stability and economic security of EU member countries at the macroeconomic level, regardless of their development level, and elucidating potential consequences of macro-financial destabilization on economic indicators.

This chapter is based on the assumption that conflicts between separate ethnolinguistic identities and imperial cultures have existed throughout history, and often played important roles. The four-volume work, Literature: A World History, serves as a starting-point for a discussion of the effects of such conflicts on various literatures. Examples are taken from, in particular, literatures written in Iranian and Slavonic languages, but the Chinese, Arabic and Turkic/Turkish impact on various literatures is also mentioned. Finally, it is questioned what this four-volume work has done to address the problem of literature and such conflicts, and what can be done to avoid spreading narratives that are – perhaps unconsciously – imperialistic. After all, this work is written in English, the most broadly used imperial language ever, and it is questioned what it means that it is being presented in this language.

This article explores the evolving concept of patriotism in the context of contemporary liberal democracies. As politicians increasingly employ patriotism in response to globalization and neoliberalism, diverse conceptions such as civic, constitutional, ethical, and cosmopolitan patriotism have emerged. Three evaluative criteria are thus introduced: inclusiveness, identity, and critical loyalty. Civic patriotism emphasizes democratic governance but may lack national rootedness. Constitutional patriotism risks overlooking cultural particularities, while ethical patriotism seeks to reconcile diverse identities but risks universalizing differences. Cosmopolitan patriotism aims to bridge global and national loyalties but may overlook critical loyalty complexities. Therefore, patriotism can be compatible with liberal democracy and citizenship if it is adequately inclusive, respects personal identities, and is critically loyal to universal constitutional ideals and specific cultural contexts.

This article aims to analyse the specifics of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s international activities by examining the country’s pursuit of consensus between cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the execution of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG 7), which focuses on affordable and clean energy. The research employs diverse qualitative and quantitative metrics to assess the impact of the BRI and SDGs on enhancing international cooperation, particularly within the context of Kazakh foreign policy relations. Key materials include decrees, strategies, and reports from the Republic of Kazakhstan and China, as well as data from the UN and various statistical agencies. The findings highlight the significant role of Kazakhstan in supporting transports, logistics, economic, and other connections between China and Europe via the BRI. The study reveals that while Kazakhstan has made progress in aligning with SDG 7, challenges remain due to the environmental impact of large-scale Chinese investments. The analysis underscores the need for Kazakhstan to balance economic benefits with environmental sustainability and to integrate robust regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance with SDG 7. The research concludes that international collaboration and the integration of environmental sustainability principles into economic policies are crucial for Kazakhstan to achieve its sustainability goals. While the country has initiated reforms for a ‘green’ transition, significant reforms are still required to fully align with SDG 7 and enhance its international reputation. The study emphasizes the importance of a multi-vector foreign policy and continuous engagement with global partners to realize large-scale international initiatives and improve energy regulation compliance.

Who should decide a scientist’s research agenda? The scientist him- or herself? Superiors, such as science ministries or university management? Sponsors, such as funding organizations or industry? Interest groups, such as churches, political parties, animal rights organizations or patient initiatives? What is the right balance between the scientist’s autonomous decision on the one hand and players’ interests on the other? These questions will not be answered here, but reflected upon with regard to the difficult trade-offs involved and the threats to scientific freedom that can result from them. For this purpose, I propose an analytical framework that conceptualizes the thematic autonomy of science as a gradual interplay of individual choices of research topics made in the context of the respective scientific community, on the one hand, and external constraints, on the other. With regard to them, seven basic levers will be distinguished. This framework will be applied to the current state of German professors’ freedom to choose their research agenda.

The concept of literature is central to histories of literature, but ‘literature’ is less of a unitary notion than one might think: what is literature according to one established usage may not be literature according to another conventional way of considering the term. It is, in reality, a problem for the writing of literary history with large historical scope that the concept of literature is traditionally used in a much broader fashion about works from – very approximately – before 1800 than about more modern works. I argue that this problem is in fact inescapable – it cannot be overcome without breaking with the genre expectations on a history of literature – but that writers of literary history should at least not hide it but be fully attentive to this state of affairs and adopt an explicit attitude to it.

This article addresses the question of whether the ‘freedom of science’ (or ‘academic freedom’) is affected by the various measures of evaluation and performance measurement that have been introduced into research and higher education. The assumption is that the political, economic and technical changes that have taken place over the last three quarters of a century have had profound effects on the communication of science in general and on scientific publishing in particular. The crucial developments are: overall growth of science, the change of science policy in response to it, especially with respect to the governance of universities; the commercialization of academic publishing companies and the concentration of the journal market; the digitization of academic publishing and the capture of the process of evaluation internal to science by the publishing companies via the production of performance indicators, as well as of communication on digital platforms. All of these developments are interrelated in specific ways and, as such, unfold their effects on the publishing process and specifically on the publishing behaviour of academics. Rather than concluding that academic freedom is curtailed by evaluations and the application of performance indicators, these have led to a fundamental change of the publishing behaviour of scholars, and more generally of the culture of communication in science.

Regulations are necessary for the governance of health products in order to protect public health and safely introduce new technologies. This article examines the history of regulations in the USA and EU for food, medicines and medical devices, to uncover the original motivations and objectives for legislative initiatives. The foundation of the US FDA in the early twentieth century resulted from concerns about adulteration of foods. Drug regulation in the 1930s was precipitated by the sulfanilamide scandal. The development of regulations for medical devices during the 1970s was accelerated by concerns about deaths attributed to devices, and complications with the Dalkon shield intrauterine device. In the EU, pharmaceutical regulation in 1965 followed the thalidomide scandal while the first directives for medical devices after 1990 followed petition from manufacturers and earlier concerns about pacemakers and heart valves. In Europe and the USA, pharmaceutical and device regulations have been initiated reactively in response to crises, as well as perceived deficiencies in regulatory frameworks. The European Commission is now conducting a review of the medical device regulations to consider possible legislative changes. This review of the history of regulations provides an opportunity to reconsider what is needed, proactively and on scientific and clinical grounds.

In an international comparison, Sweden’s state higher education institutions are characterized by their form of association, as they are formally administrative authorities. An administrative authority under the government is subordinate to the government and is normally tasked with carrying out the tasks decided by the Riksdag and the government, which are communicated via regulations, instructions to authorities, letters of appropriation and specific assignments. It is easy to see that the stated relationship of obedience to the government does not sit well with the idea of universities being free from politics and the market. In this article the weak constitutional support of academic freedom in Sweden will be displayed and problematized, and a historic account of how Swedish universities have ended up with the same legal status as the state will be given. It is exposed how academic freedom is undermined not because of illiberal ambitions, which are often at the centre of this type of analysis, but rather due to a lack of understanding for the specificity of the university by the political and administrative sphere.

Attention has customarily centred on the academic profession’s ability to carry out its work in light of external threats to academic freedom. This article draws attention to internal threats − what the academic profession does to impair itself. Self-regulation is a central attribute of professions. In the absence of professional control, quality of practice is thrown into question. Like academic freedom, self-regulation is a principle and not always a practice. Focused on the academic profession’s teaching role, this article examines two types of problems in professional control that impair academic freedom: slippage and overreach. Both are instances of organizational deviance and abrogation of professional ethics. It is argued that the patterns threaten the structural integrity and public confidence of faculty, fields and higher-education institutions and thereby compromise the profession’s capacity to persuasively defend itself.

I argue that the respective understanding of value discriminates between two forms of ‘strong university leadership’: one that is incompatible with academic freedom, one that is compatible with, if not necessary for it. The structural evolution of modern science implies that present-day sciences understand their path of knowledge creation in terms of the enhancement of measurable functional control over effects with regard to problems of life. Consequently, measures, parameters, quanta – in short: values – are a condition of ‘scientific progress’. If we understand academic freedom as the openness to a fundamental transformation of knowledge, in the domain of value-driven science, the scope of freedom is therefore structurally narrow. However, a particularly pernicious threat to academic freedom arises when scientific practice is controlled by a-scientific values. Once a-scientific metrics gain the upper hand over scientific values, academic freedom is out of play. University leaders who cannot discriminate between scientific ‘thinking in values’ and a-scientific ‘evaluating’, will likely adhere to the latter. ‘Strong university leadership’ will then merely consist of the authority to exercise an indiscriminate, arbitrary prerogative in deciding the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of scientific research and education. The effects on academic freedom of such ‘strong leadership’ can only be detrimental.

Everywhere in the world, higher education is in crisis, and institutional autonomy and academic freedom are under threat. In this article, I propose a continuum of university autonomy in relation to academic freedom, with ‘little or no autonomy’ on one end, followed by ‘low autonomy’, ‘somewhat-balanced autonomy’, and with ‘balanced autonomy’ on the other end. Then I analyse the role of the government in influencing institutional autonomy and academic freedom. My conclusion is that the government plays a key role in determining what kind of autonomy a university enjoys, and balanced autonomy can be achieved if higher education is operated as a federation where different actors, including the government, the board of trustees, the president, faculty and students, work together, one way or the other, as partners. Only then can the university as a public good rightfully fulfil its aims and purposes for the benefit of all humanity.

Authoritarian populism can be defined by anti-establishment attitudes, exclusionary identity politics and anti-pluralism. It denies and derides diverging opinions. Authoritarian populism rejects the legitimacy of opponents, both political and academic, and is susceptible to post-truth politics often steered by tropes and conspiracy theories. It poses a real danger to academic freedom and scientific standards. This article supports this assertion and describes higher education under the authoritarian populist government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. He has centralized the authority over higher education, and has in effect created a deep state, nurturing not just cronyism, but efforts to reorient the mindset of a generation of young Hungarians in an attempt to guarantee the populist and traditionalist ideological legacy of his regime. The article notes that forms of hierarchal political control over the universities and research institutes are falsely presented under the facade of the global process of marketizing universities. However, even in authoritarian Hungary, prompted by dissonance and commitments to academic freedom and scientific standards, there have been progressive counter-movements. These counter-movements provide insights into alternative visions of higher education that seek to preserve the integrity of academic standards, deliberation and intellectual plurality.

Academic freedom is widely accepted both as a fundamental value of present-day higher education and as a prerequisite for well-functioning democratic societies. Yet, in recent years, major concerns about the state of academic freedom in Europe have been raised by higher education stakeholders, including policymakers and members of the academic community. In response to these concerns, the European Parliament launched in 2022 its Academic Freedom Forum. The studies undertaken for the Forum show that academic freedom is eroding in practically all EU Member States. In this article we will discuss these studies and, on the basis of their findings, introduce six categories of threats to academic freedom in Europe. These categories allow for more structured studies on academic freedom in Europe and can contribute to a better understanding of differences and similarities in academic freedom trends among European countries.