A comment made by Sophie towards the end our last tutorial regarding transnational history’s restricted engagement with the public got me thinking more about the current divides and how it could be better bridged. In particular, I began wondering why I myself did not know much about transnational history before this semester (aside from my own ignorance), and how this promising new field could expand its reach to other historians and to the public; and indeed, if it should.
In the case of the reach of transnational history academically, as usual, the nation has some part to play. The undergraduate history departments in most universities understandably have a large proportion of their teaching and modules centred around traditional nation-state frameworks. This is understandable for a discipline whose inception was practically tied to the institutions of the nation-state and whose readership was intentionally national.
But just as the wheels of history keep moving along so should the approaches used to study it evolve and adapt somewhat over time. I think there is certainly much rationale for introducing transnational as well as global and world histories into the historical curriculum at an earlier stage. This could then help to avoid the initial (and sometimes prolonged) disorientation you feel after you step into your first MO3351 tutorial and your nation-centred world starts crumbling all around you.
In terms of its wider reach within the public sphere transnational history does risk suffering some of the same problems that the academic writing of history generally does when trying to engage with a readership beyond the lecture hall and seminar room. One of the most notable of these is the overuse of jargon or at least very long, drawn out complex sentences which seek to fit in too many aspects and arguments into one idea or expression, and often go off on tangents, such that they risk losing the intended meaning they started off with – much like this sentence is currently demonstrating. Increasing clarity of expression and only using jargon where it necessarily aids the meaning and understanding of a concept (and is fully explained in laymen’s terms) is a particularly important consideration to bear in mind for historians of a new, evolving field like transnational history.
Yet in terms of subjects studied and context there is a potential widespread appeal to transnational history that seems unrealised. Within the diverse and multicultural historical episodes which transnational historians bring to life, from Tonio Andrade’s ‘Chinese Farmer, Two African boys and a warlord’ and Linda Colley’s Ordeal of Elizabeth Marsh to broader event-based accounts like Heather Streets-Salter’s article, ‘“The Local Was Global: The Singapore Mutiny of 1915”, there is an underlying sense that you are reading a completely new angle on a previously well-documented event or being exposed to new accounts of people lives which were previously unwritten about.
In fact, in terms of method, a focus on local histories can often facilitate a direct engagement between the transnational historian and the public. This is especially relevant in the case of historians accessing family records and memorabilia as sources and aiming to sensitively and accurately portray personal relationships and stories. We saw a clear example of this in the Transnational Lives edited volume and Martha Hodes’ account of the sea captain’s wife Eunice Connolly. In discussing her search for sources, Hodes mentions how lucky she was to meet descendants of Smiley Connolly’s West Indian family in New York and New England as well as Eunice’s New England family. This enabled her to follow a more personal take on Eunice’s story and helped form her argument regarding the malleability of racial classifications across geographical borders in North and Central America in the latter 19th century.
There is no denying the complexity of transnational history, and many would argue that’s the fun of it, yet that does not mean it cannot engage with a public looking to explore a growing interest in history. Arguably, as well, it should; given its current relevance in a globalised era but even more so given that it’s simply interesting, status-quo challenging history. The difficulty lies essentially in taking complex transnational phenomena, often subject to various origins and influences, and expressing their significance in a simple, yet engaging way. Fair to say its easier said than done.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head when it comes to making transnational history more accessible to the public, but I think the issue with students being unfamiliar with transnational history prior to taking MO3351 is a symptom of a wider problem: students don’t have a nuanced understanding of historiographical concepts and approaches until too late in their education.
With St. Andrews, I’ve always found it a bit odd that historiography, as a component of historical study, is not really introduced until second year and does not play a large part in the cirricula until 3rd and 4th years, at which point it becomes incredibly important. Understanding that there are different methodological, ideological, temporal, and spatial lenses through which historical study is carried out is one of the most important skills for a student of history. Yet, most of the content in HI2001 is completely new to the vast majority of second-year history students. Compounding that, from what I have experienced and heard, most second-year modules (aside from HI2001) do not meaningfully engage in historiographical analysis. Certainly not to the extent that MO3351 has, at any rate.
This has serious implications for transnational history. I first learned of its existence in HI2001, but I didn’t chance upon it anywhere else in second year, and within HI2001 it’s a footnote that gets stuck in week 10 or 11, after most people have chosen all their essay topics. Since transnational history doesn’t get attention during secondary education, this means that students entering MO3351 (or any module with significant transnational elements) have a lot of catching up to do compared to folks studying, say, medieval military history.
This pattern might not hold for other universities, but given the other obstacles transnational history faces that you detail, I think it is likely most history students face a similar challenge wherever they are.
Coming back to St. Andrews, I think the problem could be partially alleviated by converting HI2001 into a first-year module, and giving transnational/global history more time in the limelight. That way, second-year modules could engage more deeply with historiographical ideas, including but not limited to transnationalism and its associated terms/definitions/etc. This would be beneficial for all modules not focusing on military history and the nation-state, as professors would be able to move on to more complicated and deeper topics without having to run a crash course introduction to their speciality that takes up valuable teaching time.
That being said, the core problem is with the primary and secondary education system, as well as our general culture around history. When you grow up with your education being focused almost entirely on the nation-state, and when the only history documentaries still on TV are about famous battles, there’s only so much universities can do to “level the playing field”.
I am inclined to agree with Lucius here, I think this is a fantastic piece Nick. From the perspective of university student education, I find it surprising that historiography as a topic is left to second year. In most English uni’s it is a topic confronted in first year, important as it provides the student from the onset of their university career the skills to analyse and understand secondary sources effectively. In many ways, this is what I feel like transnational history has to the potential to do in the public domain, educating the general public that we have been far more interconnected then nation led narratives would lead us to believe. You write that “a focus on local histories can often facilitate a direct engagement between the transnational historian and the public”, which it so clearly does. In fact, it remains me of a visit I made to the Holocaust Memorial museum in Berlin. In one the rooms the lives Jewish families were documented before and during Nazi occupation through letters journals. The exhibit recounted forced migration of these Jews, creating an unintentional transnational history which was not only compelling and saddening but also culturally inspiring.
In my opinion, transnational history, by focusing on the local, wrestles away the de-humanising aspects of grand narratives which can belittle human agency. This is particularly important in within my project, with the English in Hirado too often looked over in wider narratives. This steps up a transnational perspective as an excellent starting point for a documentary, exploring the interconnected nature of subject’s interactions. I will agree with you that from academic transnational can be complex, however, I don’t think this has to transition to the realm of public history. Historiographical debate is often best left to the academics. Complex jargon and ‘long, drawn out complex sentences’ do not have a place in public history, so therefore as transnational historians we must make the field the understandable. This task I do not think is as hard as we have previously envisioned. The lack of universally recognised theory makes the field open ended, presenting less of an initial learning curve for those who are interested in the topic. Tonio Andrade’s ‘Chinese Farmer, Two African boys and a warlord’ is an interesting talking point here, an engaging piece of transnational history which demonstrates the interactions of various people in Taiwan during the 1600’s. Analysis is subtle, which can be a problem in an academic sense as it leads us to questions of futility, how has the work furthered the field? And yet, in public history these less of a problem, instead the focus is educating the public in a manner which is understandable, relatable and engaging, something which I believe Tonio Andrade achieves.
I am inclined to agree with Lucius here, I think this is a fantastic piece Nick. From the perspective of university student education, I find it surprising that historiography as a topic is left to second year. In most English uni’s it is a topic confronted in first year, important as it provides the student from the onset of their university career the skills to analyse and understand secondary sources effectively. In many ways, this is what I feel like transnational history has to the potential to do in the public domain, educating the general public that we have been far more interconnected then nation led narratives would lead us to believe. You write that “a focus on local histories can often facilitate a direct engagement between the transnational historian and the public”, which it so clearly does. In fact, it remains me of a visit I made to the Holocaust Memorial museum in Berlin. In one the rooms the lives Jewish families were documented before and during Nazi occupation through letters journals. The exhibit recounted forced migration of these Jews, creating an unintentional transnational history which was not only compelling and saddening but also culturally inspiring.
In my opinion, transnational history, by focusing on the local, wrestles away the de-humanising aspects of grand narratives which can belittle human agency. This is particularly important in within my project, with the English in Hirado too often looked over in wider narratives. This steps up a transnational perspective as an excellent starting point for a documentary, exploring the interconnected nature of subject’s interactions. I will agree with you that from academic transnational can be complex, however, I don’t think this has to transition to the realm of public history. Historiographical debate is often best left to the academics. Complex jargon and ‘long, drawn out complex sentences’ do not have a place in public history, so therefore as transnational historians we must make the field the understandable. This task I do not think is as hard as we have previously envisioned. The lack of universally recognised theory makes the field open ended, presenting less of an initial learning curve for those who are interested in the topic. Tonio Andrade’s ‘Chinese Farmer, Two African boys and a warlord’ is an interesting talking point here, an engaging piece of transnational history which demonstrates the interactions of various people in Taiwan during the 1600’s. Analysis is subtle, which can be a problem in an academic sense as it leads us to questions of futility, how has the work furthered the field? And yet, in public history these less of a problem, instead the focus is educating the public in a manner which is understandable, relatable and engaging, something which I believe Tonio Andrade achieves.