Something that’s come up a lot in the reading I’ve done so far is the lack of clear definition surrounding transnational history. Of course, everything is subjective, nothing is real, the points don’t mater etc etc etc – but still, on the surface it seems like we’re trying to study a discipline that doesn’t know what it wants to be yet.
So I think it’s pretty understandable that if professional historians are struggling to come up with a definition then…you know…I’m not sure how much of a chance a group of undergrads stand.
But I’m quite an optimistic guy, and I’m trying to stay positive. Besides – here’s my thing – clear definitions are for nerds, and I think the seeming flexibility of transnational history is something that I find kind of interesting.
Towards a definition
Of course, despite the lack of ‘clear’ definitions about transnational history, there are obviously some themes emerging that make it possible to make some general definitions. I think that’s great because it allows for the genre to take shape without it being restrictive – to discuss this, I’m going to dissect a quote from Patricia Calvin.
“[Transnational history] does not have a unique methodology, but is motivated by the desire to highlight the importance of connections and transfers across boundaries at the sub- or supra- state level.” Patricia Calvin, Time, Manner, Place: Writing Modern European History in Global, Transnational and International Contexts, p. 625
Does not have a unique methodology – I think this is kind of cool. What it says to me is that transnational history is basically a set of ideas rather than a ‘historical school’ so to speak. Other methodology can and should be used to do Transnational history. That gives the area a lot of freedom, and leaves it open to potentially ground-breaking collaborations.
Connections and transfers – Transnational history is primarily concerned with movement – movement of people, movement of goods, movement of ideas, technology, religion, food, labour, movement of anything – and…
Across boundaries – …it explores these movements across borders and boundaries, rather than within them. That allows it to explore connections that may be hard to see on a standard geo-political map. Calvin also goes on to speak about the importance of analysing the boundaries themselves, both exploring the character of the boundary, and the way that people interact with it and even exploit it.
At the sub- or supra- state level – This is now the level to which the exploration is applied, and in many ways what makes transnational history unique. It basically throws of the framing device of the nation, and instead draws its conclusion based on its focuses of study – be that a small focus within a particular nation, or a larger focuses that moves between nations.
Okay but now ACTUALLY towards a definition
Assimilating this, I’d put forward my own definition: Transnational history is a way of approaching historical study that (1) focuses on movement (2) across borders, and (3) rejects the idea of a nation-state as the principal historical framing device.
Also as a quick addendum, something else that came up which I liked was the idea that transnational history is frequently talked about but less frequently practiced (Sven Beckert, AHR Conversation: On Transnational History, p. 1446). I tentatively put forward the idea that it might be easier to define if we practiced it more, focusing on the actual doing rather than talking about it.
But what do I know, I’m just an undergrad.