I was intrigued by the discussion of the similarities and differences between transnational history and other approaches that emphasize an outlook beyond the nation-state, which both the AHR conversation article and Saunier’s introductory chapter discuss. Admittedly, I often struggle to differentiate between these approaches, and the arguments in these readings helped me gain clarity. As the AHR moderator stated, these approaches (comparative, international, world, and global history) are characterized by a breakaway from the singular nation-state as the primary focus of history and this longer legacy of ethnocentrism.
Global or world history, according to the participants of the AHR conversation and Saunier, focuses on the history of globalization and international-level processes and changes. It is broad in its timeframe as it includes history before modern-day nation-states were formed, and has a history of focusing on the nation as the most significant unit for understanding societies, processes, and polities.
I find distinguishing Comparative history from Transnational history more complicated because both heavily focus on regional comparisons and connections. Saunier argues that the difference between the two approaches lies in the way comparative history was developed, as it was used as a tool to trace differences within national trajectories. Like Global/World history, it still assumes the nation-state to be the main setting.
Saunier’s second chapter on connections developed my understanding of transnational history. From my understanding, Transnational history follows the threads and lines of connections despite and in accordance with the nation-state. It acknowledges that the nation-state is an important unit for the study of history and the general organization of societies; however, it does not limit its study to these distinctions. It studies how the nation-state as a unit formed and destroyed connections, but it is comfortable stepping outside the nation to observe both regional/local and international webs. For example, the conversation about how high-technology infrastructure connected and disconnected parts of Europe truly conveys the broad scope of transnational history. Studying how power lines and grids created international connections and integrated markets while simultaneously strengthening the nation-state’s borders and power was a fascinating example of the complexities of the nation-state as a unit of study. It also showcased how transnational history can compare more than a couple of nations to historicize globalization more in depth.