In her article we read back in Week 1, Patricia Clavin states that transnational history is “first and foremost about the people.” This might be stating the obvious, but it is a useful quote to keep in mind when looking at transnational history; after all, most of the ‘interconnectedness’ that Ian Tyrrell speaks of in his book was most likely created by mankind. So when considering networks as an object of study, we must also include the people who created and made use of these networks. Lux and Cook’s article actually pinned down the creation of one network- written correspondence between academics in 17th century Europe- to the personal, face-to-face interaction between them. In order for two people to begin a written correspondence- a flow of ideas across national borders- there had to be a trust that existed between them, and this trust had to emerge from face-to-face meetings between the people in question. Therefore, a personal connection was a prerequisite for written correspondence.
Though their findings might address a very specific instance in history, the idea that face-to-face meetings were an essential precondition for a correspondence to exist could easily transcend their focused study of the written correspondence of 17th century scientists. In fact, this idea might gives us a starting point from which to begin any inquiry into the field of transnational history. If one is looking at an existing network, it could be useful to begin by looking for the place where face-to-face interaction took place and thus where the network came out of. Say one wanted to examine trade networks between Japan and British India at the beginning of the 18th century. It may be helpful to first pinpoint a place where British and Japanese traders came into contact and perhaps began discussing possibilities of doing business. Where were these interactions taking place? Why were the Japanese there in the first place? Why were the British there? What steps were taken that successfully started trade between the two places? Or, did this trading network even begin with face-to-face meetings with British and Japanese traders? Did it come about indirectly, say by a meeting of a British trader with a Chinese trader who happened to be carrying Japanese goods? These are all questions one could tackle in undertaking this inquiry.
This method of investigation, however, also perhaps reveals the certain degree of impossibility of transnational history, in that it is absurd for a historian to attempt to study face-to-face meetings of people in-depth unless there are written records of them. How can we know for sure what the nature of the meeting was or what was being discussed or how the people in question were feeling at the time? How can we even pinpoint exact dates and places of meetings if all we have to study is what followed or came out of the meetings (in Lux and Cook’s article, the written correspondence). Perhaps from the 21st century onwards, these interactions might become easier to study with the advent of social media- people often times check in on Facebook when they out with someone (“Person X is with Person Y doing Z at Location 1”)- but even still we cannot know for sure what the conversation is or what their emotions are.
Reading:
Clavin, Patricia, ‘Defining Transnationalism’, Contemporary European History 14/4 (2005), 421-439.
David S. Lux and Harold J. Cook, ‘Closed Circles or Open Networks? Communicating at a distance during the scientific revolution’, History of Science 36 (1998): 179-211.