The philosophy of music education has grown remarkably during the last decades, and now has all the characteristics of an academic discipline, including a growing scientific community and several forums for public discussions--the MayDay-Group and its e-journal "Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education" are one proof of that, and the International Society for the Philosophy of Music Education and the "Philosophy of Music Education Review" another one. The "international" discussion in the field has tended to be dominated recently by two leading paradigms, both of which stem from a North American tradition. This does not mean, however, that the philosophy of music education as a whole is a (relatively) homogenous enterprise. Obviously, there are schools of thought, for example, the philosophy of music education written in German, that can be characterized as "national"; these philosophers tend to bypass the international discussion altogether and concentrate on their own topics, problems and traditions, and stick to their own language. This may explain serious misunderstandings that can occur when "international" discourse is pursued. If one does not wish to devalue national traditions as merely provincial, there must be a reason, or probably several, for the "nationalization" of philosophical thinking that makes communication difficult across national boundaries, traditions, and languages. The result is disadvantages for both the national and the international debate, as many valuable theories, ideas, and experiences fail to be considered. This paper is a first attempt to search for those reasons and to look for ways of avoiding or minimizing such misunderstandings in the future. The author does not believe, however, that these misunderstandings will disappear altogether, or that there is a chance of reconciling different positions in a universal way on the basis of an anthropology of music. And of course, the paper itself is example of the problem it seeks to tackle, as it is written from a "German" point of view. However, the author nonetheless proposes that there is a chance to "internationalize" local traditions and to "re-nationalize" the global discussion in a way which may be called "glocal". (Contains 14 notes.)