Week 2 Blog

Turning towards transnational and global history emerged from dissatisfaction with the nation-state as a primary unit of explanation for historical events. The readings from the first and second weeks all push the idea that national frameworks obscure the processes that actually drive historical change. Bayly defines transactional history different than others. Bayly describes it as the focus of the movement of people, goods, and ideas across borders rather than the assumption that societies develop in isolation. Similarly, Calvin believes that European history should be re-situated within wider global processes. With these readings in mind, transnational and global history is therefore something of a corrective approach that reveals hidden connections overshadowed by methodological nationalism. 

Bayly was able to link the rise in transnational history to contemporary globalization, migration, and postcolonial critique while Calvin believes its traces stem from postcolonial studies, feminist history, and subaltern studies. Therefore this shift is not across the board a neutral one as it reflects present day concerns about various elements (inequality, mobility, and global interdependence). 

Both Clavin and Rüger express transnational, global, and international history as something that should not be seen as mutually exclusive. International history focuses on states, transnational history foregrounds networks and transfers, and global history is something that oftentimes seeks to decenter Europe, at least from my understanding of the texts. Here is where some comparison arises. Their relationship is complimentary rather than competitive yet while comparative history highlights national difference, transnational history focuses on interactions which produce such differences and similarities. 

Rüger’s OXO case study shows the strengths and limits of transnational analysis. It reveals how commodities are not created from national innovation but through global independence, additionally how nationalism and war are still factors too. Transnational connections not dissolving conflict but rather being reshaped by it. Furthermore, this study shows how the integration of state power and political struggles into transnational narratives is fundamentally important. 

Transnational history requires us to change our understanding of empires through the emphasis on circulation and negotiation as well as sustained attention to power.

The readings argue that transnational and global history should not replace national history but rather reframe it. Europe should not appear as a self-contained state but something that is shaped by wider global processes (and Europe shapes other global processes too). There needs to be a retained focus on conflict, hierarchy, and human agency while integrating national, comparative, and transnational processes.