Can transnational history be written without the mention of the “nation”?

Can transnational history be written without the mention of the “nation”?

Reflecting on the Week 4 Readings, I was intrigued by the discussion regarding “nations.” As poignant stated in the ‘Introduction. Space and Scale in Transnational History’ article, the scale by which transnational history can be measured far outshines the limitations of “nation-states.” The argument was cogently made that history can be studied through the more fluid categories of identity, region, and even ethnic group (p.578). Similarly Ian Tyrell in Transnational Nation references looking at history in terms of the local scale, finding the balance between local and global history. While I agree with Tyrell and acknowledge the merits of looking at history through other perspectives than just the nation-state, I find it hard to abandon the notion of the nation entirely when writing any history. In other words, I agree with the statement that some accounts of transnational history benefit from being assessed through the documentation of religious groups or regional ties. However, I disagree with the notion that the nation-state can be entirely abandoned in accounts of transnational history.  Notably, some histories might cater more towards regional studies or specific state case studies (like that of the United States), but the overarching influence of the nation is hard to separate from any narrative.

With this in mind, I pose the question of “why do we need to seperate transnational history from the nation?” It can be coherently argued that looking at national histories can be a telling starting point for international movements. For example, in my proposed project focusing on EU identity, it is helpful and some would argue (like me) necessary to start from the building blocks of nation states and state actors. My fear is that if historians separate or feel they need to separate the idea of the nation entirely, important historical parallels will be lost. To illustrate, in A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys; and a Warlord: Toward a Global Microhistory, Sait a Chinese farmer is an actor in a larger movement, but described as a Chinese farmer. Sait helps the Dutch prepare for oncoming attacking from Koxinga’s army, and therefore acts against his nation. The reason this story is so significant within history is the movement of ideas and actions across nations. It would seem difficult to remove this concept of a nation and still defend the prominence and importance of the historical narrative of Sait.

Why is there so much hesitation towards a narrative based around the “nation”? To some, a possible reason could be the implications of the word “nation.”  “Nation” denotes a place with set boundaries, isolating a group of peoples rather than connecting them. However, a counter argument would be that by recognising the presence of nations within historical narratives it is easier to draw and see connections, politically, economically, and culturally when a fixed scale of “boundaries” are in place. For example, tracking the movement of Yiddish speakers in during World War II could be more easily done by accessing the number of speakers in each country, and using those statics to contribute to a more holistic picture. By looking at national boundaries, a larger image of global collaboration, globalisation, and transnational ties come into focus. For example, in order to make sense of terms such as “globalisation”, one must understand how commodities and ideas spread from one country to the next. These links defy borders but in order to understand how connections blur national boundaries, there needs to be talk of these national boundaries. To abandon the idea of the nation entirely would be doing a disservice to the discipline of transnational history.

I believe it is difficult to think of a situation that is benefited by completely discarding the nation. For example, even tracking the movement of technology or cybersecurity still gets wrapped up in specific national legislation and policies. The nation is always part of the conversation whether it is used as a scale of measure, or whether it is absent from the conversation (speaking in more global terms as a method of contrast)– it is nevertheless talked about. So in sum, while the nation must always be present in historical dialogue, it is not necessarily the strongest method for accessing a historical study.