Month: February 2026

Conrad’s three chapters for this week shed light onto a fascinating concept that I personally had never considered. As someone typically only exposed to more mainstream historiographical methodologies, it had never occurred to me that the cultural character of a

Readings this week illustrate the benefits of adopting a transnational lens to scrutinise national pasts. One could argue that approaching history by dividing it into compartmentalised nations can lead to two crucial omissions: first, that of the exogenous formation and

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

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

As I read through this article and chapter, I became simultaneously clear yet more confused about what transnational history is; and maybe that’s a good thing, or not. The debates concerning transnational history seem to encourage a flexibility of methodologies

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

This week’s readings provided extensive depth into not only how to come to terms with and define (to an extent) transnational history and similar historical approaches, but also how they came about and under what contexts and reception. The AHR

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

Both Saunier and Christopher et al. agree in broad strokes that ‘transnational history’ is an as-yet unfixed and somewhat fluid methodology, and is better described as a point of view, or method of relational history, that can then be applied to almost any historical

I have been interested in transnational and global history after taking a class last year on Middle Eastern History. I used one of the essays in this class to look at the spread of radicalism in 19th century Egypt and

I found these initial readings for the module very compelling. Patricia Clavin’s definitions of various terms including transnational history, global history, and international history, provide the reader with an excellent foundation for further understanding these terms and how to recognize

Major takeaways from this week’s reading have all been pertinent upon the conceptualisation of transnationalism as a historiographical approach. Transnational history emphasises upon the porous boundaries between nations — namely the interactions, connections and flows that transcend national borders. However,