Week 5

Transnational history is often presented as a solution to the so-called ‘methodological nationalism’ that was and is prevalent amongst the social sciences. However, Naumann’s Revisiting transnational actors from a spatial perspective and Alcalde’s Spatializing transnational history: European spaces and territories argue that this new methodology is far from something that should be adopted

WEEK 5

This week’s readings challenge the positive narrative surrounding transnational actors. Dietze and Neumann show that the “transnational” is not a free-floating space, arguing that actors remain embedded in layered socio-spatial contexts even as they build cross-border connections. Similarly, Alcalde argues

Week 5 Blogpost

It is essential that transnational historians engage with space and time in a flexible manner since, in transnational exchange, both time and space can have a different quality. For instance, the phenomenon of technological developments like the telegram or railways significantly affected human understandings and experiences of time and space. Even seemingly simple objects such as

Week 5 Blog

Week 5 Both Alcalde’s and Dietze and Katja’s dosseirs address different outlooks on the spatialization of transnational history. Their work discusses scholarly trends that challenge the supposed natural, fundamental, and self-contained nature of spatial units such as the nation-state. In

Week 5 Blog

Saunier’s writing on the methodology of transnational history was particularly inspirational to me. The interdisciplinary aspiration of transnational history by his elucidation of its rich “toolbox” — not least how it could benefit from closer cooperation with historical archaeology and