The attempt in the American Historical Review to more closely pin down what it means to write transnational history certainly makes for compelling reading as it presents the developing views of six historians with very varied backgrounds on a subject which, according to the introduction, is “in danger of becoming merely a buzzword among historians, more a label than a practice.”
The historians’ opening statements bring up various attempts to distinguish between transnational and global history, with a focus on the importance of movement being key to an understanding of the transnational. A further recurring theme is that of comparative studies, whether the comparison is between how something is done in different times or in different places or both.
The conversation brings up some key problems facing transnational historians, some of which have hindered the development of the subject in the past. Patricia Seed discusses the way that transnational history requires historians to “situate their topic within a much larger framework.” This is undoubtedly a large challenge, as an enlarged framework requires more research in order to retain historical accuracy, whilst also necessitating an increase in conciseness in order to keep pieces of works from ballooning in both length and complexity. Simply put there is a need to process more information into a similarly sized space.
There is a tangible sense of excitement at being at the forefront of a developing field that I can sense in the discussion, perhaps combined with one of intimidation at how much work has to be done before this field can be compared with others in terms of the breadth and depth of works undertaken, and this comes from historians originating from very different fields, highlighting the breadth of a transnational approach. Ideas broached during the conversation vary from social justice movements to global financial institutions.
One of the biggest problems is that of definition, and finding a relative consensus on this. There seems to be a divergence in views within the historians as to whether they are writing transnational history or writing history with a transnational aspect. I feel that this is an important distinction to make, as it feels that writing history with a transnational aspect rather than focussing more specifically on transnational history could result in less innovative studies with a superficial veneer of transnational methodology on top.
Overall the conversation is very thought provoking and seems to pose more questions than it answers, which is not necessarily a bad thing for an article written in this format. The concluding thoughts in the article highlight the vibrancy and potential of the field, whilst also emphasising the consideration of a younger generation of historians, which feels pertinent to our module given the way it is taught in a fashion to allow the students to take charge of ‘doing and practising’ themselves.
The AHR conversation certainly makes for very interesting reading, and you have teased out some important points, which I hope to elaborate on. The first of the questions posed by the moderator is concerned with the “distinctiveness and relevance” of TH to the practice of history. To which the six historians do not disagree among themselves, though each person places the emphasis differently. You point out that the historians think TH has to do with “movement” – in Christopher Bayly’s words, TH (as opposed to “international history”) gives “a sense of movement and interpenetration.” As for its “comparative” quality, it is brought out most strongly by P. Seed, whose claim is that TH “identifies an inherently comparative notion of history.” And this is interesting, because she is not only making a claim about what TH should strive to do, but more fundamentally about the practice of history – that historians somehow use a “shared vocabulary of the present” which provides “cohesion” to history but inevitably involves a tacit contrast between the past and present. In addition, the “larger framework challenge” you attribute to P. Seed goes back to the question of what is original and innovative about TH. Part of the challenge lies with being forced to examine a scaffold many take for granted and to suggest that that too, is constructed – namely, historical writing treating “nation” as the basic unit. It is almost the gist of TH to break down the national unit to reveal the regions and locales within. I like how Sven Beckert puts it: “modernity is not just about one part of the world; it is fundamentally about the changing relations between various parts of the world.” Here the focus is on what is changing, it is also relational, whereas national boundaries in nationalist historiography is unchanging and encourages introspection. I also find your point about “writing history with a transnational aspect as a veneer” very interesting. I’d quite like you to elaborate on that, as I personally do not see an effective way to tell the two apart. Part of the problem comes from the fact that TH neither completely depend on or nor do away with national boundaries, but only treat them as free to be manipulated.