Despite what the title might first suggest, with my still limited experience of practising transnational history, I did not feel I could construct said history for someone who’s transnational story is limited to one childhood migration across the Scottish border. However, I thought that a good first approach to this new method would be to consider how I have previously studied history, and how a transactional approach could be applied to this.
A transnational history
My experience studying history at school, like many British students I suppose, was one almost exclusively revolving around the first and second world wars. Here the events of the past were discussed in strictly national terms. To twelve year old me, it was the case that Germany chose to invade Belgium, and then Britain and the US heroically intervened later on. It was not only as if these nations were agents in themselves, but that these national relations were sufficient to understanding the wars. While we spent some time considering the impact of individuals through primary sources, there was no discussion around the nuanced causes and effects of the wars, and how they were felt among differing communities. It was also an extremely inevitable reading of history. Don’t get me wrong, I am sure that it was a hefty task to keep thirty children engaged in the first place. Perhaps more thematically discussed was the months spent discussing the Russian revolutions, though their impact across the globe was rarely touched upon, let alone in a way which managed to consider more than purely national terms.
A transnational approach? Wow!
So, while my intrigue into historical events was born in school and thus the reason why I am in St. Andrews studying history, I am grateful that my experiences in school have not hampered my recognition of the importance of studying transnational history (which must be proven by my module choices this semester!).
However, reading Jan Rüger’s piece on the relationship between transnational and ‘traditional’ historical approaches, it was interesting to note that he appreciates the importance of the old models of studying history which I have been damning. For him, these histories play an important foundation in the understanding of wider historical trends, especially for younger students.
“In the traditional undergraduate survey courses, the nation state reigns more or less supreme. Called ‘Europe Since 1800’, ‘European History 1890 to the Present’ and the like, they focus on the Continent’s revolutions, wars and dictators”.
Jan Rüger, ‘OXO: Or, the Challenges of Transnational history’, European History Quarterly, 40(4) (2010), pp. 656-668.
This sounds oddly familiar! I must admit that many history modules I took in first year were astonishing in scope, to the point where I struggled to keep up. However, they provided an enjoyable background to allowing me to specialise in honours modules. It is of course not the case that national borders simply do not exist, nor do we deny that they play an instrumental role in International relations. However, I agree with Rüger in that these should not be the strict limits to all historical study.
An overwhelming method?
While it seems slightly formidable to realise that history can and must be looked at from so many varying perspectives, which also challenges most of how I have done history until this year, it is important that we do make strong efforts to integrate transnational study into our routine. Studying HI2001 in second year stirred in me an interest in historical approach (despite the mild horror stories about the module I had been told by friends in the year above!). ‘Wow, history is more than nations doing things which effect other nations!’ I thought. I was able to further this intrigue when studying ‘MO3052: The Library, A Fragile History’. While a history of the library seems rather insignificant when considering subject areas such as the French Revolution, or British colonialism, for example, the approach we took to study the development and transmission of ideas through books and libraries was eye-opening. Here a focus was put on the creation of libraries by individuals, families, and institutions, which allowed for a study of the transmission of ideas through communities; from novels within the 18th century upper classes, to 20th century readership in mechanics institutes.
At the time I did not linger on the transnational aspect of this history, and thus I wish to spend some time over the coming weeks glancing back to consider how a more transnational spin could be taken. After all, as it is noted by Sven Beckert, transnational history should be a “way of seeing”. This comforts me, proving that, just because my historical approach in school was perhaps not the most all-encompassing, it does not prevent me from looking back and re-writing these wrongs. Over the coming weeks, in addition to developing a knowledge of what it means to do history transnationally, I hope to develop a new and improved transnational knowledge of the 20th century world wars, or of the creation of libraries and dispersion of books in the last millennium.
The positive journey ahead!
Looking ahead to the next semester of work and discovery, I will leave with Rüger’s comment that the only university seminars which consider transnational and global historical approaches he has found are usually limited to postgraduate students. He is saddened by the fact that there has so far been little effort to connect this area of teaching, with the still important basis of national approaches. Well, challenge accepted!