An Image of the World

Scale is a term that is intrinsically linked to the processes of transnational history. With close links to that of micro-history, scale in the transnational perspective – another crucial component of transnational history – is centred on an inherent fear of monocausal and unilinear macro-explanations. In a sense, transnational historians often look for a so-called narrative order of micro-macro developments by altering the scales of analysis; ranging from a single family, to international, or cross-continental, entities. This focus on the particular scale that a given historian might employ is explicitly shown in reference to transnational historians preference to not use the nation-state as the “primary scale of analysis” (Struck, Ferris). In this regard, I am definitely a proponent of the transnational perspective. However, I believe that too many questions arise when considering the transnational historian’s labelling of nations and nation-states as the same entities.

Clearly, it is a historians obligation to look at a nation-state and observe the people and customs as conjoined with the aspects of the state (actual borders, institutions, administration). Yet, I feel that to regard the nation – the wider community of compatriots with shared interests & history – as essentially the same as the nation-state does the transnational discipline a dis-service. This can be explained with the use of analytical tools called Monads. The usage of monads (miniatures of the world around them) might help explain why and how a certain group, village, or town engaged in transnational processes. However, monads also work to explain that nations and nation-states are separated by two important factors, or are at least faced with two significant objections to the view of nation=nation-state.

1. Issues with scale – a nation and its people cannot be explicitly, or possibly even implicitly, defined by its borders and the institutions within the state boundary. Moreover, monads and their function as snippets of the larger issue (either regional, national, or global) often rely on the links between a community or nation. In turn, monads must be able to see beyond the nation-state if (as with the Jewish community) a peoples, or nation, is dispersed across borders. Conversely, monads must also be able to distinguish when nation-states, and all its real-life institutions, affect the transnational research. In essence, monads must be able to simultaneously use and ignore the functions of a state, not just disregard totally because of the distinction that nation=nation-state.
2. Linked to issue #1, “Continuity is based on discontinuity”. As Peltonen states, a timeline of continuity is dependent on the “exceptional events in a given monad”; they operate as the incarnation of discontinuity which directly affects/ ensures continuity. However, as with the issue of monads’ scales, “continuity is based on discontinuity” encounters problems of boundaries/restrictions. In particular, Walter Benjamin’s aforementioned phrase does not adequately explain how monads should be interpreted in relation to the nation, which has previously been shown to have difficulties with borders. As such, the question of a monad and its apparent disregard of the ‘stately functions’ of a nation-state depicts how certain historians might have skewed analyses as result of the disregard for the ‘state’.

These are but a few of the objections to the distinction that nation=nation-state. I suppose it is possible that I have greater difficulty accepting this transnational doctrine for my view of the world was always closely linked to belief that a nation and a state are two completely separate entities that work in conjunction with one another, but not always for the same reasons. A state, and thus its institutions and borders, must always have a clarity to them that cannot be seen in the nation. Even further, a monad might explain the larger processes of a certain people within a nation, but it might never explain the larger process of state-building or governance. – To be honest, this is pretty strong conjecture – Do you think a monad and its use of scales can be a precursor to explaining a nation-state, or simply just processes between similar (and different) peoples/nations? For me, a nation-state cannot ever be solely homogeneous, or represented by a monad. Yet, a nation can.