Antje Dietze and Katja Naumann talked about how historians must look at space and spatial perspectives through a transnational lens. They talk about how space itself is a socially constructed concept, explaining that “the predominance of the national space has long been a core assumption in many historiographies.” (417) The notion of the nation-state continues to take precedent when discussing spatial histories. However, this then ignores the understanding of the connection of lands beyond border limits, and how space allows for the interaction of people outside of a single community. There is a stress on the need for historians to not only look at the changes that happen over time, but also the changing spatial understanding and how this influenced various cultures. Ángel Alcalde discusses the historical tendency to focus on the “temporal over the spatial dimensions of history,” with historians willing to offer variations of periodization rather than different configurations of historical space.(553) With both these readings, it becomes obvious that a variety of spatial understandings is possible within history, but often neglected. Transnational history is able to help mediate this need to show variety within spatial understanding, following actors through their cross-border interactions, but also showing the importance of these actors within their own communities. These transnational networks begin to show how countries interacted, but also how this interaction is brought home and compared to one’s own cultures.
While thinking about the “predominance of national space,” I also became curious about how historians compare the differences among regions within a nation-state. How do historians differentiate with regional differences, while still examining the state as a whole? Could there be an attempt at transnational history within one country? There are several countries that could be a subject of this study, but I am particularly interested in Spain and the interaction between the Central Spanish Government and the regions that have been demanding independence or more autonomous control, specifically the Basque Country, Catalonia, and Galicia. Since the late eighteenth century, Spain went through the challenges of creating a united and centralized state, and after each region has gone through varying degrees of independence. Although these regions have come together and been governed by one Spanish state for over two centuries, there is still an important regional tradition around Spain, with distinct languages that are still spoken. While considered one country to the people outside of Spain, the distinct difference between each region is clear to the Spanish people. I have been thinking about how this can be examined through a transnational lens, specifically concerning memory and how Franco’s dictatorship is commemorated within these different regions of Spain. During the era of Franco’s dictatorship, the government was focused on centralization of the Spanish nation, allowing for little ideas of independence among the regions. Galicia, Catalonia, and the Basque Country are a part of Spain, but they still have their own cultures, traditions, and languages that are unique to them. How do their own histories fit into the greater history of Spain, especially after a repressive time that only reinforced their individual cultures rather than weakened them?