Comparing Rita CHIN and Ian TYRELL

Several thoughts on a comparison between Ian Tyrell’s Transnational History: United States History in Global Perspectives since 1789 and Rita Chin’s The Guest Worker Question in Postwar Germany.

First of all, the central arguments of both works. Tyrell states that there are two themes to his book: first, it emphasises the ‘porous boundaries’ between American and foreign developments – culturally, economically and socially; second, the development of a distinctive ’empire’ out of these experiences of connectedness. It argues that the nation itself is produced transnationally. Meanwhile, Chin’s work has the aim of demonstrating ‘ways in which the guest worker question is inextricably bound up with central issues of German social, political, and cultural history after 1945.‘

In terms of analytic angle, then, Tyrell looks at the reciprocal relationship between America and foreign countries, whereas Chin focuses on one particular transnational influence on German society – that of labour migration. Simply put, Chin’s work challenges the ‘core-periphery’ binary in postwar German historiography by arguing for migration constituting a significant role in the development of postwar German identity and a specifically German type of multiculturalism. Tyrell, on the other hand, primarily challenges the introspective/hermetical narrative of American historical development that does not give enough considerations to transnational influences.

I would like to structure my subsequent discussion on the differences between Tyrell and Chin using the three categories of ‘time’, ‘manner’ and ‘place’ suggested by Patricia Clavin in her 2010 article. For Chin, her historical study rejects a representation of ‘a neat catalogue of successive positions,’ but attempts to trace the shifting emphases within a larger debate that always consists of ‘multiple issues and categories,’ wherein ‘one issue became increasingly prevalent during certain moments.’ (my emphasis) For instance, in the period between 1966-7, there was a mounting critique of the guest worker program, which could have led to a more open public debate about the costs and consequences of labour migration, were it not for the series of social crises created by the ‘increasingly radicalised student movement’ in the latter half of 1967 that preoccupied the West German government.

As for Tyrell, being alert to the ‘multifarious transnational connections of the US,’ he argues that the national formation of the country happens simultaneously with other transnational developments. For example, Tyrell marks the period from 1880s-1920s as one in which a ‘stronger nation-state is consolidated within the context of new imperial rivalries,’ where ‘modern American nationalism is forged against external threats.’ It does not presume the existence of a stable American frontier before transnational influences came into play.

In a discussion of the methodology in each work, I will address ‘manner’ and ‘place’ at the same time. Chin introduces the idea of the ‘public sphere’ with reference to Jürgen Habermas. As Chin goes on to argue, debates about the guest worker question ‘played out simultaneously at the levels of labour policy, mass media, and cultural representation,’ (19) demonstrating the ‘interconnectedness of politics, economics and culture.’ Therefore, in constructing her arguments, Chin draws on official policies (such as the 1955 labour recruitment treaty signed between West Germany and Italy; the halt to all foreign labour recruitment in November 1973), reports by news media (portrayal of ‘Turkish revolt’ in mainstream media in 1973; letters to the editor pointing to the unsuitability of describing migrant workers as ‘guest’) and cultural critique (by Max Fisch, grass root artists and a chapter on Turkish poet Aras Ören) to locate the shifting prevalence of different voices and issues.

In one chapter, Tyrell explores the mutual influences which Europe and America had on each other’s social and political reforms. He looked to institutions to prove his point – the ways penitentiaries demonstrate transnational relations because the designer is of an English background, the Eastern Penitentiary is built in Philadelphia, and it drew observers and emulators from Britain, Germany, Belgium and Russia. Other reforms mentioned by Tyrell include the ‘temperance movement’ and the abolition of slavery. Nonetheless, in the period under discussion (19th century), the question of race as a distinctive and intractable part of American society not shared by Europe makes comparisons more difficult.