What differences in style and approach can tell us about Clavin and Subrahmanyam’s approaches to the field.

The first thing of note in comparing Clavin and Subrahmanyam’s two monographs is the difference in time between the two. Clavin published Defining Transnationalism in 2005, a full eight years after Subrahmanyam’s own Connected Histories, published in 1997. That debates over matters of definition went on for eight years, and in fact remains open, shows how divided this young field is. Both Clavin and Subrahmanyam begin their monograph with a discussion of another expert in the field of international relations, however it is there that the similarity ends. Subrahmanyam is directly responding to Victor Lieberman’s then recent exercise in comparative history, using what he views as the deficiencies of Lieberman’s argument to help define his own. Meanwhile Clavin briefly sketches the life of Julius Moritz Bonn, an interwar figure who played an important role in international relations. Clavin uses Bonn’s life to illustrate her point that transnational history should not concern itself solely with “the transfer or movement of money and goods” and instead focus on people. It is also interesting to note the differences in terminology used by the two authors. Subrahmanyam does not use the word “transnational” once in his monograph, instead preferring to stick to describing things in a global sense. One the other hand Clavin uses the term “transnational” freely. Part of this may come down to the fact that in the intervening eight years the field became more established and the terminology more agreed upon. However, it also speaks to a difference in approach between the two theorists. Subrahmanyam broadly approaches transnational and global history from a more traditional lens than Clavin. Subrahmanyam focusses on the way in which the divergent movements that defined the “early modern” period were linked by a flow of elites, both in person and their ideas. Ideology is seen as a vital part of the motivation for historic events. On the other hand Clavin is more concerned with transnational institutions, such as the League of Nations. These are already well known institutions which can be studied in a way that is in line with transnationalism. Rather than just movement across borders, Clavin is studying elements of history which supersede borders. These differences speak to the pairs different interpretations of what the field of transnational and global history is.