As I read Bayly’s comment in the AHR Conversation on how many students go to university with knowledge of figures such as Hitler, but “without any notion that these figures represent much broader political and ideological moments,” I realised I myself fell into that category. Throughout my journey in the British education system, from the Jacobites to the Second World War, and in much of my undergraduate degree so far, my experience of studying history has on the whole been rather ‘un-transnational’. I have tended to study or been taught historical topics constrained to or focusing on the nation, and generally in isolation from other events. Therefore, by looking at transnational and global history this semester, I am excited to explore these approaches more and what they can offer to the discipline.
As discussed in the AHR Conversation, transnational history, similar to global, world, and international history, makes a move away from more traditional historiographical approaches. No longer focusing on the nation-state as the primary object and area of study, there is the opportunity for new insights and perspectives across a larger geographical scale. However, it is important to note that ‘transnational’ does not equate to ‘global’. Transnational history does not look at the history of the world, but rather focuses on the cross-borders connections, networks, and movements in a certain region.
A sticking point seems to arise, however, when trying to define exactly what transnational or global history is. In the AHR Conversation in particular, various definitions and components of transnational history are passed back and forth. This includes Seed emphasising its “ability to follow people (wherever they moved)”, and Hofmeyr highlighting its focus on cross-border flows, circulations, movements, and comparison. Yet, no one definition is agreed upon.
While I view defining terms, methods, and approaches as important, a lot of energy seems to go in to this discussion. The conversation almost gets dragged down by this quest to define transnational history. Meanwhile, Connelly points out the inadequate amount of transnational history practiced thus far. Therefore, it makes me wonder, just how important is forming a precise definition? Would it be more useful to actually just practice transnational history and demonstrate what it adds to the discipline and what it can do?
Throughout the first week in this module, it has stood out to me just how much there is to explore with transnational and global history. Potter and Saha’s article ‘Global History, Imperial History and Connected Histories of Empire’ particularly drew my attention and provoked reflection. Having studied Postcolonial Europe and the legacies of the French and British empires last semester, I have come to realise how, for the most part, I had focused in turn on the French or the British. I already am intrigued by the what could be learnt and revealed by a more connected and comparative approach towards these empires. For example, how did the French perceive the British empire, and vice versa? What communications were there between the two? Did they draw ideas from each other?
I am excited to introduce, to quote Beckert, a “new way of seeing” to my study of history this semester. Although I think the different approaches and methods will challenge me, I look forward to the new insights and understandings to be gained through transnational and global history.