“If you don’t know history, you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree.”
I’m reminded of the above quote, penned by late author Michael Crichton, in my attempts to process what I think and feel about transnational history. As a novel, emerging approach to an ancient field, transnational history is difficult for me to conceive. Perhaps I’m too invested in the idea of the nation or nation-state as a historical starting point, but I find the idea of rooting history in “links and flows,” as put by Konrad Lawson, an incredibly difficult task. This post, however incomprehensible as it may end up being, is my attempt to organize my thoughts on transnational history.
I took a course with Konrad last semester titled “Decolonizing Asia,” and in it he always emphasized the “so what?” question when talking to my class about our essays. Essentially, the “so what” question was this: “why does this history / argument matter?” I suppose a good way of thinking about transnational history is considering why it matters.
History has always been a means by which humankind understands the present and attempts to guide its future. In this increasingly globalized, interconnected world, its important that historians can reference a history that speaks to the needs of humanity. In my personal view (in this I’ve been heavily influenced by Professor Gerard DeGroot), historical work must be able to justify its existence on the basis of its relevance to the public. In my understanding, transnational history matters because it is a new history for a new age: it allows us to comprehend the past in a way that complements our understanding of the present.
Today’s issues demand the analytic approaches of transnational history, as do certain historical topics themselves. For instance, how can we even conceive of contemporary issues such as migration, disease, and climate change without thinking transnationally? How can we think about historical concepts like “empire” or even “culture” or “commerce” without thinking transnationally?
It’s like what Crichton said: it’s essential to understand the bigger picture. Studying historical connections will only help us better understand our interconnected world. History is a discipline that must always justify itself to the world; it must matter. In doing and practicing history, we must not lose the forest for the trees, nor the honeycomb for the hive as Clavin might put it. The practice of transnational history will help us stay conscious of this fact. We need to write history that is relevant and comprehensible.