‘Transnational Italian Cultures’: Editing as method

Abstract

The issue editors invited contributors to this section on methodologies to reflect critically on the benefits and drawbacks of using a transnational approach to Italian cultures, and to assess whether the multiple and diverse applications of this approach have changed the field of Italian Studies more broadly. In order to offer some response to these questions, and to propose ways forward for work in this field during the decade to come, I want to focus here on my role as co-editor of the book series 'Transnational Italian Cultures.' 'Transnational Italian Cultures' was a joint initiative that my colleague Derek Duncan and I first proposed to Liverpool University Press in the summer of 2014. Looking back at the initial proposal that we sent to the press, I am struck by two things. The first is how we defined the scope of our inquiry as operating within "the burgeoning field of postcolonial, global and transnational Italian studies." The second is our stated aim to "bring together the outstanding work which is now being done in this area, and by bringing it together, set a new agenda for academic research on what constitutes Italian culture today" (emphasis mine). I am interested in the first statement because of how broadly we initially defined our "field" of inquiry, as spanning the intersecting spheres of postcolonial, global, and transnational studies, and I will return periodically to the still-shifting nature of how we set the boundaries of Transnational Italian Studies throughout this short piece. The second statement, however, is what I want to focus on: the importance of the act of "bringing together" the individual works in question in terms of providing a tailored space for their publication, but also in terms of what assembling a group of particular works means for the development of the wider field itself.In the paragraphs to come, I will thus seek to explore and offer some answers to the following questions through an analysis of the volumes we have published in the series to date. Why is it important to carve out a specific space of assemblage, such as an edited series, in order for a field of study to stretch, enfold, and develop? What can we learn by looking at the volumes in this particular series as constituent components of a community space? Can the sort of editorial work that Derek and I have carried out for the series be