In the wake of post-colonial and post-modernist thinking, ‘Eurocentrism’ has been criticized in a number of academic disciplines, including Translation Studies. First published as a special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 6:2 (2011), this volume re-examines and problematizes some of the arguments used in such criticism. It is argued here that one should be wary in putting forward such arguments in order not to replace Eurocentrism by a confrontational geographical model characterized precisely by a continentalization of discourse, thereby merely reinstituting under another guise. The work also questions the relevance of continent-based theories of translation as such along with their underlying beliefs and convictions. But since the volume prefers to keep the debate open, its concluding interview article also provides the opportunity to those criticized to respond and provide well-balanced comments on such points of criticism.

In the wake of post-colonial and post-modernist thinking, ‘Eurocentrism’ has been criticized in a number of academic disciplines, including Translation Studies. First published as a special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 6:2 (2011), this volume re-examines and problematizes some of the arguments used in such criticism. It is argued here that one should be wary in putting forward such arguments in order not to replace Eurocentrism by a confrontational geographical model characterized precisely by a continentalization of discourse, thereby merely reinstituting under another guise. The work also questions the relevance of continent-based theories of translation as such along with their underlying beliefs and convictions. But since the volume prefers to keep the debate open, its concluding interview article also provides the opportunity to those criticized to respond and provide well-balanced comments on such points of criticism.

In the wake of post-colonial and post-modernist thinking, ‘Eurocentrism’ has been criticized in a number of academic disciplines, including Translation Studies. First published as a special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 6:2 (2011), this volume re-examines and problematizes some of the arguments used in such criticism. It is argued here that one should be wary in putting forward such arguments in order not to replace Eurocentrism by a confrontational geographical model characterized precisely by a continentalization of discourse, thereby merely reinstituting under another guise. The work also questions the relevance of continent-based theories of translation as such along with their underlying beliefs and convictions. But since the volume prefers to keep the debate open, its concluding interview article also provides the opportunity to those criticized to respond and provide well-balanced comments on such points of criticism.