Self-translation, which is when an author translates his or her own texts and the outcome is two (or more) distinct works speaking to two (or more) different audiences, provides a useful insight into transnationalism and border-crossings, which are phenomena that operate outside the national, monolingual paradigm. Self-translation is regarded as a kind of border-zone activity that reorganises the relationships between languages and literary traditions, challenging the monolingual assumptions of the literary institution and literary history writing, which have been important in the construction of the modern nation-state. This is also the case in Finland where the literary institution and traditions have been defined by language despite the fact that Finland has two official languages, Finnish and Swedish. By looking more closely at the self-translations of two Finnish authors, Kersti Bergroth (1886–1975) and Henrik Tikkanen (1924–1984), and the strategies that are used in their texts in order to engage simultaneously in two languages, cultural spheres, and literary traditions, I discuss self-translation as an interpretive task that attempts to negotiate complex cultural equations that are subject to the changing fortunes of time and place. The analysis focuses on texts by Bergroth and Tikkanen that depict war, on their intersections and overlaps, showing that self-translations link Finnish and Swedish-speaking language groups and literary traditions.

On the basis of a study of an international Buddhist movement, this article defines “ethical conversations across borders” – acts of ethical deliberation, evaluation or argument that take place in cognisance of multiple ethical regimes – and proposes the conditions under which they can take place. Fo Guang Shan, described in the first part of the article, is a Buddhist movement that originated in Taiwan, but which now has branches around the world. It seeks to promote the cultivation of virtue among its members and among other people with which it has contact. The teachings of Master Hsing Yun, the movement’s founder, advocate two methods through which this project can be realised, “sowing seeds of affinity” and “convenience”. The second part of the article generalises observations made in relation to Fo Guang Shan and draws the conclusion that all “ethical conversations across borders” require two things, namely, the identification of similarities or “affinities”, and an account of difference that stipulates the units between which the conversation is to be carried on.

A growing body of literature is accumulating around theories of cosmopolitanism. The concept is hotly debated within a number of disciplines, and similar debates circulate beyond academia, among national and transnational actors. This paper aims to critically appraise some of the current competing discourses and agendas around cosmopolitanism and their implications. The recent emphasis on cosmopolitanism is not without its detractors, and this paper engages with some of the key critiques of the current cosmopolitan turn. These touch on multiple dimensions of the cosmopolitan project, its essentialising and reductionist features, its western-centric bias and its postcolonial inflection. While some scholars mobilise the concept of cosmopolitics to contest the political nature of cosmopolitanism rhetoric and agenda, others historicise its political and economic context. Still others flesh out the figure of the cosmopolitan, offering alternative readings of the current postmodern condition, or undoing the cosmopolitan project from within. Through an exploration of the discrepancies between competing accounts of cosmopolitanism, and of contested understandings of who can or cannot aspire to be considered ‘cosmopolitan’, the paper sets out to highlight the situatedness of specific political projects associated with cosmopolitanism and to discuss the ramifications of privileging specific views of cosmopolitanism over others.