While my understanding of the applications and benefits of transnational history has been expanded by the readings this week. I primarily found myself thinking back to previous historical work I’ve encountered and its place in this debate.
I found the AHR Conversation on the subject of transnational history, or ‘history in a transnational perspective’ as Saunier clarifies, particularly enlightening in its comparisons between the transnational approach versus global, and world histories.
I find it interesting to think of the emerging field of transnational history, and why it might have gained popularity in the first place. Like Hofmeyr suggested, it’s been interesting to compare the “biography of ‘transnational’ to the career of the rubric ‘postcolonial’”(1444). I found myself thinking about the subfield of postcolonial studies, ‘new imperial’ history. I was introduced to this term by new imperial historian Matthew Stanard in his work on colonial culture during the interwar period (I recognize the irony of me talking about a ‘period’ when the readings this week discussed the dissolving of periodization through transnational history but bear with me). Stanard defines new imperial history as studying the effects of the empire on the metripoles. Instead of simply studying how the colonized were affected by the empire, new imperial historians ask how the colonizers were in turn affected. In his article he employs comparative methods to study how seven different countries throughout Europe developed similar colonial cultures.
It has now been several months since I read this article but it has been interesting to revisit in light of this week’s readings. Stanard was clearly heavily influenced by the emerging term ‘transnational history’, arguing against the use of individual nation states as sufficient categories of study, and trying to find a throughline in colonial culture throughout diverse countries in Europe.
Going back to the readings from this past week, Hofmeyr suggests that because so many fields of history, including studies of the African diaspora, area studies, postcolonial theory, and others, already employ ‘transnational methods’, the term ‘transnational history’ may prove unnecessary. I found this interesting to consider but ultimately disagreed with her line of thought. While yes, there are many fields that already do the work transnational history seeks to do, I believe that applied as a lens through which history can be studied, its continued development can be an aid in study and not a distraction.
At the risk of ending on an unrelated note, the point made in the readings this week that I found most helpful to understanding the goals and aims of transnational history was from Saunier’s introduction. They stated that whether ‘transnational’ history is investigated on a ‘global’, ‘world’, or ‘translocal’ scale is secondary to the primary purpose of investigating the connection between communities, polities, and societies.