I have yet to find any clear definition of transnational history, and perhaps this should come as little surprise. The ‘angle’, ‘way’, ‘perspective or ‘response’ of transnational history is relatively new: not just to me, but the wider academic community in general.
Is the lack of definition problematic? Can ‘transnationalists’ agree on the nature of their ‘perspective’?
To tackle these questions, I turned instinctively to my ‘bible’ – the sixth edition of John Tosh’s ‘Pursuit of History’.[1]An absolute must have, in my view, for anyone attempting to negotiate HI2001, or the scope of historical enquiry more generally. Tosh’s work provides several chapters (‘Mapping the field’, ‘The uses of history’ and ‘Historical awareness’ for example) dedicated to explaining the various subdisciplines of history.
As far as know, Tosh does not term his work ‘transnational’. A well-accomplished historiographer however, I thought it useful to weigh his take on transnational history against those insights provided by transnationalists like Patricia Seed and Chris Bayly.
From Tosh’s description, I took what I found to be the three most important features of this new and exciting discipline. First, that it provides a basis for challenging the national paradigm of historical analysis, primarily by illuminating the global ‘networks’ that have shaped aspects of national development. Second, that these transnational ‘networks’ function at sub, supra and inter – national levels. That is to say that they exist below, above, in-between or across nations (as a ‘full range of contacts and influences from abroad’). Third, that transnational history does not discriminate with respect to the ‘types’ of ‘network’ it seeks to explore.
Turning next to the 2006 AHR review (particularly with respect to those comments on the ‘distinctiveness of transnational history’) my concern about the problem of ‘doing’ transnational history without a clear definition of the field changed. I found Tosh’s description echoed those provided by the six contributors. Beckert’s account of transnational history as skeptical of what he termed the national ‘enclosure’ resonated with the idea of decentralizing the national paradigm. The frequency with which terms like ‘across’, ‘movement’, ‘interpenetration’ and ‘flows’ appeared in relation to the idea of transcending national boundaries was analogous to Tosh’s idea of extra-national forces determining national development. Appadurai’s ‘space’, or (better perhaps) ‘spaces’ of ‘the flows’ was / were certainly comparable to what we might be able to describe as ‘levels’ of transnational interaction (above, below and in-between the nation). It seemed as if there was a good deal of consensus on the character of approach after all.
If I could then describe ‘transnational’ history, might it look something like this?
‘The study of those extra-national or national historical forces that have moved above, below, between and across national borders’.
I liked the idea of using ‘forces’, instead of targeting ‘people’ or ‘goods’ specifically. It left scope for more natural energies (disease or climate change for example): those also capable of moving across national borders at different levels. The idea of using ‘movement’ also appealed to me. ‘Flow’ seemed to imply linear or one-sidedness direction.
I’m not quite sure of how fruitful this self-invented exercise has been to the reader, but I do now (fingers crossed) have a much stronger understanding of what transnational history can involve.
Back then to the original questions I posed at the beginning of this entry (I’ll work backwards). I do think there is a general consensus on the ‘nature’ of the transnational perspective. Some of the more nuanced expressions however (‘forces’ rather than ‘networks’ for example) that can be used to describe the focus of that perspective itself, might well be subject to contest. As to my first question, I’m ironically beginning to appreciate the lack of a clear-cut definition. It affords the potential for massive, perhaps untraditional analytical scope (something that may serve me well further down the line during the progression of this module).
Admittedly there are still some issues I would like to resolve. Does transnational history seek to understand the flows that shape nations, the nations which shape the flows, or both? Am I right in thinking that the discipline can incorporate ‘natural’ rather than exclusively ‘man-made’ ‘forces’? Does it examine the movement of these ‘forces’, or their reception in different / exclusive national contexts?
[1]Tosh, John, The Pursuit of History: Aims, methods and new directions in the study of history(London, 2015).
Excellent and thoughtful comment on readings (beyond what is on the table for class tomorrow), I like it a lot. Good to see you having a “bible” at hand, that always helps. And Tosh might indeed be useful as it is not explicitly transnational as such, yet there is overlap. I sometimes wonder myself in my attempts to practice transnational history (e.g. Esperanto movement, sorry, again!): How often (if at all) do I need to spell out (explicitly) that this is “transnational” or simply accept that the topic is a natural evolvement over time through engagement with transnational literature, example, case studies, AHR, Clavin that informs my thinking (without a clear definition).
Happy to see that the lack of definition may not be a weakness as such. If you are looking for explicit definitions, see e.g. Ian Tyrrell’s Introduction to “Transnational Nation” or the Palgrave Dictionary
While I think this blog post is really eloquently written and articulated, I would have to respectfully disagree with some of your assertions. Before explaining my view, I want to completely acknowledge that because this is online, I very well could be misinterpreting what you are saying (feel free to fire shots back at me).
With that being said, the first premise in your argument I find both paradoxically compelling yet problematic. To quote: “I do think there is a general consensus on the ‘nature’ of the transnational perspective.” To begin, I will discuss why I find this statement oddly compelling. You make a reference to the idea of a shared conception amongst historians and audiences reading transnational history. This is a very important and interesting observation. It shows that while the discipline of transnational history is very flexible and inclusive, there also exists a defining factor, delegating what counts as transnational history. While I completely agree with your point, I disagree that a shared perspective is the answer to this collective understanding of transnational history. So, to restate my previous paradox, I find the statement, “there is a general consensus on the ‘nature’ of the transnational perspective” compelling in the respect that I want to be able to pinpoint the conjoining factor within the discipline, but concurrently problematic because I do not agree a shared perspective is the answer.
The reason I find this premise problematic really comes down to the phrasing of “transnational perspective.” To me, this would imply that is there one decisive transnational perspective referenced within historical works. However, I would argue this is not the case. Depending on the time period, situation, and course of study, the transnational perspective changes. For example, bringing in the readings from this week (Week 3 Deacon, Desley, Penny Russell, and Angela Woollacott, eds. Transnational Lives: Biographies of Global Modernity, 1700- Present), the assigned chapters on Subaltern Lives brought into the focus the range of perspectives one can stumble upon when studying transnational history. From reading about Jane Franklin, I understood the “transnational perspective” as a view seeking to unite countries through a shared goal to save these explorers. This view appealed to the audience pathos, evoking a feeling of a responsibility to mankind to save these lost explorers. While this was more a perspective linked to human rights, the story of the Sea Captain’s Wife, Eunice, focused on racial prejudices. Both Jane and Eunice’s stories encompass transnational perspectives (hence the plurality) not a transnational perspective. Additionally, the transnational perspective could be geared towards econ, politics, or social justice, depending on the time period, historian, and thesis of the project. In sum, while I am a huge fan of Occam’s Razor, this shared “transnational perspective” is too simple a solution for a deeper ideological predicament.
Though critical of the term “perspective”, I do agree with you that there is some aspect of the field ‘transnationalism’ that bond historians and cultivate a shared understanding of the term. While I am quick to critique your analysis, I will fully admit I cannot replace your assertion with a revised one. Hopefully as the course continues I can add to my argument, but for now, I can only put forward that I do not fully agree with a joint “perspective” binding all historians to the discipline.