I’ll admit that one of the issues I have been having in attempting to envisage global and transnational history and what they might entail is the potential scope of the subjects. At times, it seems that there are so many
A look at how microhistory may be closer to cultural history and transnational history to international politics, even if both histories adopt the micro lens of analysis.
This entry compares the way transnational history is practised in two books, one by Ian Tyrell and another by Rita Chin. I started with their central arguments presented in the book, then went on to use the three aspects of transnational history presented by Patricia Clavin in last week’s reading – ‘time’, ‘manner’ and ‘place’ – to discuss their differences.
*Note: This is an attempt to express a thought that has been bothering me, by tomorrow I may completely disagree with everything I have just written.* I’ve had this niggling idea since last week of this issue of language in
The relation of global history to transnational history is more complex than I first thought. An interesting point raised, that I wish to address here, is the idea that the two schools converge. Behind this is the idea that transnational
Patricia Clavin’s article on Global, Transnational, and International history is an adequate introduction of these approaches’ potentials and limitations in reshaping European history. She divides her article into three parts, time, manner, and place, to describe how specifically a transnational
Jan Rüger’s article from 2010 applies the history of OXO meat extract as an example of transnational history. It acts as a brief introduction to wider discussion of cases of national engagement, stressing that transnationalism has both strengths and weaknesses.
In response to the presentations on Tuesday (all of which were centered around fascinating topics, I might add), I just wanted to post my thoughts about a few ideas that stuck out in my mind. I was very taken by
When I began my research for my project, I was very optimistic about the role that primary sources would play in my sources. Much like Sebastian Conrad examined the role of work in his study of migration in 19th Century
When I first began reading about history, I remember becoming engrossed into the stories from the past, whether it was Paul Revere’s famous night ride from Boston on the eve of the start of the American Revolution or Adolph Hitler’s
In last week’s seminar we discussed (among other points) the role of the nation and modern-nation state in trans-national history. Questions were raised – as in some of the blog posts – as to how the nation-state interconnects with other
The reaction against the ‘nation-state’ paradigm as the inevitable status quo has become well entrenched in recent historical discourse. Gellner’s and Anderson’s seminal works in the 1980s have spawned a plethora of re-evaluations of how we can conceptualise the world.
From Jan Rüger’s brief article on the challenges of studying transnational history, I found his point on nation-states quite intriguing, and perhaps a little surprising at first. After reading many articles critical of the construct of the nation-state in my
It is often cited that there is a danger that ‘Transnational history’ could become a buzzword for a new type of international history: a means simply to transcend previous ‘boxes’, such as the nation, region, or locale, and a means
What is transnational history? And what is it about? Some critics have commented that transnational history was a too loose, open and vague concept. Personally, I would defend it – I would defend the openness and vagueness as a strength