Growing up competing in geography bees, the boundaries of nations are practically embedded into my brain. Pierre-Yves Saunier, in his book Transnational History: Theory and History, prompts a reevaluation of the sheer durability and the supremacy of nations as ‘units’ of historical analysis and encourages historians to adjust their perspective. In his introduction, Saunier explains the agenda, timeframe, geography, and scope of transnational history. He contrasts Transnational History to Comparative History by metaphorically referring to ‘comparison’ as a ‘tool’. In comparative history, comparison is used by historians to analyze and evaluate historical courses; whereas, in transnational history, comparison is used by historical actors themselves, and the use of this tool in history is what transnational historians seek to study. ‘Comparison’ is a topic of study in and of itself, rather than a tool for studying topics. Saunier’s second chapter, ‘Connections’, extensively references cases and examples to illustrate the multitudinous connectors, connections, and avenues of connection that satisfy the appetite of the transnational historian. The sheer number of examples he lists demonstrates the malleability of a transnational approach. Transnational history, rather than its own history, is the adjustment of one’s perspective, enhancing the capacity of historiography to see between and across national borders. It is similar to examining a topographical map instead of a political map. One shows the color-coded polygons of various states and territories, and the other, though still displaying the titles of these areas, gives precedent to other features of the land – mountain ranges, rivers, basins. It applies a different lens and thus expands one’s understanding of a region. Transnational history gives historians access to a myriad of different lenses. Sometimes a topographical map is not useful. Likewise, sometimes a political map is not useful. Each helps us to see different things. Recently, a friend of mine prompted me to revisit an essay by David Foster Wallace, This is Water. In the essay, Wallace encourages the adoption of an attentive, critical, conscious perspective. Now this perspective is one which views life, not history. But his description of its use resonated with what I read in Saunier’s excerpts. Wallace acknowledges the likelihood that the perspective will not always be suitable to adopt in every situation, but that it has potential to be useful in every situation. In a similar vein, the transnational approach will not always be useful or applicable to each topic but will always have the potential to be so.
Week 2 Blog