Does transnational history require a nation state or does it simply refer to the ways in which networks interact?

Although transnational history, by its very name would suggest a nation is necessary in its premise, does it actually need a nation to provide a comprehensive historical narrative? Or instead, does it simply need a border within which to work. In this blog post, I will aim to explore just what ‘makes’ transnational history.

The 20^th and 21^st century was a particularly turbulent time for the nation state, with borders constantly being formed and then reformed. Global warfare was an omnipresent theme throughout the past two centuries, and has consequently had a dramatic effect on shaping the modern world.

Transnational history is closely linked to globalization, and the ways in which business, politics, economics etc. have burst beyond their regional borders and come into play on a global scale. The nation too is a central theme to transnational history; however I would argue that it does not indeed need a ‘nation state’ to exist. This is primarily because, transnational history is actually not the studying of nations per say. Instead, it is the study of what forms a nation, the people, business, networks and intellect that exist within the nation.

The Nation can be defined as a group of people linked together by some form of shared anthropological history, whether this be culture, religion, language or race. To explore how history operates across these borders therefore does not require a hard ‘national’ border. Instead, by recognizing soft borders, such as a difference in culture, transnational history can be explored on a much more local level. For example, this school of history could be employed in the Northern region of France where a dichotomy exists between the Bretons and French. The people that live in Brittany ‘nationally’ fall under the umbrella of being French, however they do have their own separate language and culture from their sovereign state. No hard border exists in the country, and arguably it is not a particularly evident cultural change, however it does exist and have a strong history. Thus, transnational history is un-reliant on a nation state to exist. It would be fair to assess that although useful to the study of history, it is not actually necessary when exploring transnational history.

The nation state is particularly complex, and has been constantly redrawn throughout history. It is this changing shape that makes studying transnational history so interesting, however there are many other factors which may be explored under the general term ‘transnational history’ that do not require such hard borders.