What is the definition of transnational history? A simple Google search of the phrase produces a myriad of results none offering a clear definition. A result from University College London entertain that they’re a forum for transnational historical research, but no explanation[1]. While a hit from St. Andrews University, gives a little more information; this is a way to see things not an actual historical method[2]. While giving more information than UCL, again there is no description. And a Wikipedia entry also emerges, it headlines the article with the term World History, and notes that world, global and transnational history are synonymous but not to be mistaken with diplomatic or international history[3]. In terms of defining transnational history, Google has produced three differing results so perhaps Patricia Clavin’s ‘Defining Transnationalism’ will make the definition of the term clearer[4].
Clavin’s essay is introduced with an abstract, something not too common within historical articles, and poses the idea that the term of transnational history can be best understood as building honeycombs. To Clavin, honeycombs bind together but there are hollow spaces where things can build or decline and then be replaced by new [421]. For me, this concept makes sense, categories are connected, but there is movement and space for the new to grow and the old to fall. But unfortunately, the rest of the article does not remain as straightforward.
Simply turning the page, and the illusion that I would be reading a concise and to the point definition of what transnationalism is was shattered when I was met with the term ‘fluidity’ [422]. Clavin’s point is that there is a lot of movement to the term of transnationalism because it can involve a wide variety of characters and therefore it is very difficult to actually define the term to a specific category. Moreover, only by understanding the differences between trans-, inter-, and supranational relations can a transnational approach be fully understood. Clavin believes that cultural historians do not distinguish between these terms and hence misinterpret what transnationalism involves [424]. According to Clavin, cultural historian’s, view transnational encounters as “Border Crossings” [423]. But while the crossing of borders is a correct assumption, Clavin argues that this sort of thinking promotes the suggestion that it is through these interactions, these crossings, borders are broken down. However, often groups exploit and work to maintain boundaries because they gain profit from their ability to cross them. Yet for the reader, Clavin’s argument loses focus, when even she does not properly define inter-, and supra-, relations in regards to their differences to transnationalism.
Moreover, while it is important to consider the nation as part of transnationalism, Clavin argues that it is also important to remove the subject from nationally determined timescales and compare the development over a wider chronological period [429]. This brings in the concept of scale, as the subject is not bounded to a national scale and can be studied at a more local or international level. Thus emphasising the idea of the subject transgressing the national boundaries for example, when studying economic history, boundaries of the nation-state are not always recognised.
It is easy, when discussing history to immediately fall into focusing on a specific country, forcing us between geographic boundaries. Clavin effectively highlights that within transnationalism, this is not the case. With the movement of people, ideas and goods, there are connections across the globe that do not relate specifically to a country and a better understanding of these connections would be to study the links and flows. And while this does not define transnationalism as concisely as hoped, that is precisely Clavin’s point, transnationalism does not have a set definition, because transnational history is not set or limited to boundaries. Clavin has allowed the reader to gain the understanding that this is a fresh perspective to take on history, to study beyond the borders of a nation-state.
So, how would I define transnational history? A complex web of relationships spanning national boundaries and years. It is a focus on the people, the ideas, the goods, the institutions and their movement throughout the wider world. It is to look at how everything interlinks and flows across boundaries and space. And while my definition is not one that will be quoted in any reputable Historical Journal and perhaps is even too basic and simplistic for what transnational history actually is, it’s a start.
[1] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/cth
[2] http://standrewstransnational.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_history
[4] Clavin, Patricia, ‘Defining Transnationalism’, Contemporary European History 14/4 (2005), 421-439