MO3351 Doing and Practicing Transnational and Global History

National Identities and Interconnectedness

American Identity: Uncle Sam, George Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt welcome the Great White Fleet home in 1909. — American Identity: A 1909 cartoon depicts Uncle Sam, George Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt welcoming the Great White Fleet home.

Sebastian Conrad stated in the introduction of his book, Globalization and the Nation in Imperial Germany, that it is generally assumed that nation states existed before there were interconnections between peoples of different nations. The issue with this assumption though is that it is a limiting and narrow perspective upon history, one which cannot answer the question of the origins of nation-states. Humanity long predates the concept of the nation-state: fossil remains and Stonehenge will attest to that. These people who lived in the days before the nation-state was born engaged frequently in several activities- commercial, diplomatic, and martial- that would have brought them into contact with people from different areas and regions. One does not have to go back very far to find these connections: medieval Europe had frequent trade contact with China and the Far East and often found themselves at odds with the Islamic world. Thus, by the time the concept of the nation-state had been conceived (Ian Tyrrell cites the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia as the emergence of the nation-state), there existed several interconnections between peoples living on different continents, as well as those living in different areas of the same continent.

Another issue with this narrow assumption is that it fails to explain the history of a country like the United States. The first European settlers had been on the continent for almost two centuries before the Revolutionary War (not to mention the Native Americans who well predated even Ancient Rome), and by 1776 the descendants of the first settlers and new immigrants had built up impressive trade networks that went well beyond the future borders of the United States. These connections would continue to grow as the nation began its search for identity in the 1800s, and by the time a distinct American identity had emerged, the country had trade links all across the globe. Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet, commonly thought of in American history as the ‘debut’ of America as a global power and certainly a great indicator America’s ‘distinctive empire’ (to borrow Tyrrell’s phrase), would not have been possible without the vast trade network that American merchants had been exploiting for decades before the Fleet set sail.

Therefore, as Conrad argues, globalization and the interconnections between peoples led to ideas about distinct national identity. They are, in a way, a prerequisite for nations to emerge: if there are no connections between various peoples, then is there even a need for them to distinguish between themselves and form ideas of national identity in the first place? Conrad’s example of Germany at the beginning of the 20th Century and Tyrrell’s of the development of a national ethos in the United States both support this claim, and so it should be recognized that the interconnectedness of peoples played a significant role in developing nations in the course of history.

Readings:

Conrad, S. Globalisation and the Nation in Imperial Germany (Cambridge; New York: 2010)

Tyrrell, I. Transnational Nation, United States History in Global Perspective since 1789 (Basingstoke: 2007)

For more information on the Great White Fleet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet

The transnational histories of nations

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. Patrick Geary’s Myth of Nations examines a handful of ‘foundation’ myths, showing how they can be easily deconstructed to demonstrate holes in the teleological ‘nation-building’ charade which so many governments throughout the world continue to propagate. Too many of these narratives are inward looking, painting a rich tapestry of the ingenuity of the ‘people’ of a geographically confined area on the path to full nationhood. The categories of chance and interaction with external powers are almost entirely whitewashed out to produce an epic tale of nations emerging in isolated processes.

As historians, we are instantly aware that these creations are anachronistic, and the deconstruction of such myths is closely tied to the discipline itself. We are immediately sceptical of events and movements that purport to take place in a vacuum, so is it in fact the case that transnational and global history (at least in twenty-first century scholarship) has already become subconsciously subsumed into the practice of history?

The nation is not the only historical ‘actor’. Sebastian Conrad has shown how nationalisation and globalisation are not “two stages of a consecutive process of development, but rather were dependent on each other.” It is only through cross-border interaction that the identity of the nation became constructed. Catherine Hall states: “We can understand the nation only by defining what is not part of it.” By this token, all nations were created transnationally. In the United States, for example, links were not one-way, but were very much reciprocal; people, ideas, and institutions moved back and forth. The trend for ‘Atlantic History’ departments in North American universities reflects this rethinking; however, relations with the ‘Atlantic World’ were arguably just as important as relations with the ‘Pacific World’, but this is often left out of the picture of ‘Atlantic histories’. The value of transnational and global history perspectives is that they take into consideration all of these connections. How, then, should a transnational history of a nation be constructed?

Of course, it would be unrealistic to suggest that a single volume could claim to be a definitive ‘transnational history’ of that nation under study. We should, rather, speak of ‘transnational histories’- the plural form implying that each constituent study contributes to the corpus of the transnational history of that particular nation. Perhaps this is too broad a canvas, but it remains necessarily so if one is to incorporate all the flows and connections, taking everything into account. Eventually, one finds that ‘globalisation’ grew in tandem with ‘nationalisation’. In Germany, for example, the debates around 1900 centring on Chinese labour, Conrad shows, “must be seen as a reaction to the increasing mobility and connectedness of the era.” In rhetoric about protecting national identity and character, the degree of racial difference between the ‘Germans’ and ‘Chinese’ was perceived to be so extreme that there was no risk of the ‘German’ race becoming diluted. This was part of the justification by the Prussian landowners in their support for the prospective importation of such labour, rather than ‘Polish’ labour, where the risk of miscegenation was considered to be far higher. It is no coincidence that the foreign ministries of burgeoning ‘nation-states’ became the most important governmental departments at this time; local and national problems were embedded within global structures

Naturally, all of these labels- ‘Chinese’, ‘Americans’, ‘Germans’, and ‘Poles’- are constructs themselves. It was only through the ‘discovery’ of the ‘Other’ that such identities could be created. As historians, we know that the world cannot be analysed in these black-and-white terms. Levels of identity are, and always have been, far more multilayered than this. Transnational history ensures this dialogue continues.

Conrad, S. Globalisation and the Nation in Imperial Germany (Cambridge; New York: 2010)

Tyrrell, I. Transnational Nation, United States History in Global Perspective since 1789 (Basingstoke: 2007)

Transnational History & Migration Studies

It is unsurprising that transnational history, a field obsessed with mobility, has much to offer to the study of migration. As we briefly discussed in last week’s seminar, transnational history allows us to move beyond the simplistic analysis of international migration through the lens of push-and-pull factors. Instead we are compelled to analyse the complexities of migrant flows. Both Tyrrell and Conrad demonstrate the advantages of the transnational perspective as they examine migration, within the context of what they see as an early ‘globalisation,’ in nineteenth century USA and Germany.

Chapter 3 of Tyrrell’s Transnational Nation focuses heavily on how social movements and ideologies flowed between Europe and the USA. He suggests that American sympathy with European social reform movements was strengthened due to the large numbers of refugees crossing the Atlantic, citing the example of Italian migrants in New York following the failed revolutions of 1848. (P.43) In the following chapter Tyrrell engages fully with the subject of migration, noting that some 65% of European emigrants to the Americas in the 1800s settled in the USA, and suggesting that geographical proximity was the principal factor behind this. Rather than pursuing any notion of the ‘abundant opportunities’ on offer, most European migrants simply favoured a journey which was comparatively affordable, quick and safe. This view seems to me to be a product of the current state of migration studies, in which neo-classical, bilateral, economic interpretations of migrant flows have been firmly rejected.

Throughout his examination of US immigration Tyrrell acknowledges the racial and demographic diversity of the migrants. He shies away from an Atlantic-centred view, and in doing so he challenges the two-wave model of US immigration by showing that the significant flows of Chinese, Japanese and Mexican migrants do not conform to such a model. Finally, he discusses how World War I caused migration from Europe to stall, while simultaneously boosting production in American industry, forcing factories to draw on Mexicans and African-Americans as a new source of labour. Tyrrell’s transnational perspective allows him to paint a refreshingly nuanced picture of US migration.

Conrad also demonstrates the benefits of the transnational approach, in Globalisation and the Nation in Imperial Germany. Part of his focus is on Polish migration, and he acknowledges immediately that “individual reactions to push-and-pull factors cannot adequately explain the extent of Polish migratory movements that were clearly influenced by systemic factors.” (P.149) Polish migration to Germany was continually subject to control by landowners and state agencies, with fears over the possible effects of mass immigration on the German economy and culture dictating levels of border control. By going on to examine Chinese migration to Germany and her colonies in the nineteenth century, Conrad makes a link between German social history and the mobility of Chinese workers. This link sheds new light on both areas by breaking out of the regional context, and could perhaps only have been achieved through a transnational history approach.

Overall, Conrad’s views share a striking overlap with the modern ‘migration systems’ theories of contemporary geography. The increasing tendency to focus on the transnational ties, policies and organisations, which affect migration, has grown up since the 1990s, alongside wider debates about globalization. Transnational history also emerged in this environment and, as a result, historians such as Conrad and Tyrrell have a platform from which to study migration in all its complexity.

Conrad, S. Globalisation and the Nation in Imperial Germany (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Tyrrell, I. Transnational Nation, United States History in Global Perspective since 1789 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)

Preserving Clarity in Transnational History

If transnational history is intended to ‘destroy containers’, to borrow the phrasing of Dr Struck, then we must be careful to ensure that we are not simply replacing one set of obstructive and dogmatic terms with a newer yet similarly unhelpful set of restrictive phrases.

History, structured and defined by notions of the nation state, has proved popular and durable as the concept of the nation state is easy to understand and define. Therefore, the very concept of transnationalism suffers from the fact that it has to deal in less definable, more abstract terms. Hence, it is the duty of the practitioner of transnational history to ensure that these new terms remain easily and consistently defined, simplifying rather than obscuring the study of history.

While Clavin’s Defining Transnationalism and Patel’s Transnational History both generally maintain a helpful level of clarity when defining the terms on which their vision of transnationalism is built, some others have occasionally allowed the vagueness of some of the more abstract terms to undermine the clarity of their definitions. Hinting at such a point, Patel quotes the Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History which states that transnational history involves ‘the people, ideas, products, processes and patterns that operate over, across, through, beyond, above, under, or in-between polities and societies’. It is unclear, to myself at least, what it means for an idea operate ‘under’ societies or indeed what the difference is between those ideas that operate ‘beyond’ or ‘through’ societies. The crux of the problem is that essentially ideas can’t actually move in a literal sense – ergo ascribing more abstract and intellectual concepts with physical properties, while perhaps providing a more evocative analogy, is inevitably going to lead to vagueness and detract from the clarity and value of transnational history.

Happily though, Clavin has provided a clearer and more strongly defined framework for discussing history with a transnationalist perspective. Clavin splits international relations into three ‘elements’ – transnational, international and supranational. If we are to define these terms based on the strict dictionary definitions of their respective prefixes, then we are provided with definitions for phenomena occurring across a number of nations, between individual nations, and out with the confines of the nation state. These categories, then, appear much more useful to the historian than merely regurgitating restrictive and indistinct clichés that describe how ideas somehow ‘move’ amongst geographical spaces.

One, then, must remain vigilant that the terms used by practitioners of transnational history remain clearly defined to avoid the creation of yet more obstructive ‘containers’ that hinder, rather than simplify the study of history.

Readings: Patel, Transnational History

Clavin, Defining Transnational History

Struck, Destroying Containers! The Challenge of Spatial Dynamics (http://transnationalhistory.net/doing/2015/01/29/destroying-containers-the-challenge-of-spatial-dynamics/)

Is transnational history dependent on the nation?

Transnational history is an elusive term. It’s perhaps an attractive concept because of the difficulty in citing an exact definition, but its potential and creativity is crucial to its interpretation. Freed from the constrictions of an “intellectual straitjacket”, I am inclined to agree with Patricia Clavin’s understanding that to assign a definition would counteract the phenomenon of transnational history. It is an open concept that should not be made to adhere to traditional expectations of historical enquiry, or be fit into a version of ‘container history’.

Expanding on the notion of containers quite literally, I was reminded of a photograph by Allan Sekula, a contemporary photographer whose image here documents the world economy and globalisation in the 1990s throughout the UK, America, Korea, and Poland. Sekula is drawing connections between trade and industry of nation-states by mapping the “invisible global maritime economy” and capturing images that remind “metropolitan elites” of the conditions of globalisation. Though ships are perceived as outdated in the modern era, here he reveals the world economy depends on them. The image reminds me of Christopher Bayly’s remarks on the emergence of global history in the 1990s as a reaction to globalisation and seemed to combine these thoughts of ‘containers’ and ‘global’ rather literally. However, Bayly distinguishes the term “transnational” from as a term evoking a sense of movement and crossing boundaries. Global history acts as the heading under which transnational history is found, and that allows transnational history to focus on a narrower geographic and chronological subject.

Allan Sekula Panorama. Mid-Atlantic, November 1993, from Fish Story 1989–95 — Allan Sekula
Panorama. Mid-Atlantic, November 1993, from Fish Story 1989–95

The transnational approach concerns itself with the movement and flow of people, ideas, capital, etc., but one challenge that arises is the exact nature of transnational history’s relationship with the nation-state. Patricia Clavin mentions this problem and perceives the nation-state as an unavoidable feature of modern society, particularly with regards to European history. Christopher Bayly recognizes this inevitability when arguing that with regards to his work transnationalism is a limited concept. The nation has only come into being over the past century and a half, which raises the questions that if a historian is to study regions undefined by nations or before 1850, is transnationalism still an applicable tool? Can you have transnational history without the “national”? Or is there a more appropriate word to replace “national”? The term itself (“transnational”) assumes that there are borders in order to cross them, and is a paradox on account of its ability to either reinforce or dissolve borders. Often times when the value of historical research is questioned (the “so what?” factor), it must somehow be of significance to a bigger picture that usually involves the nation. This can be frustrating, as it seems limiting that the nation must be the be-all and end-all. That is why I am inspired over the course of this module to further pursue questions of borders and conceptions of space, in addition to determining where the nation is situated with regards to the subject of my project.

Readings

Christopher A. Bayly et al., ‘AHR Conversation: On Transnational History’, 1441-1464.

Clavin, Patricia, ‘Time, Manner, Place: Writing Modern European History in Global, Transnational and International Contexts’, 624-640.

Clavin, Patricia, ‘Defining Transnationalism.’ Contemporary European History 14, no. 04 (2005): 421–39.

In case anyone is more interested on the work of Allan Sekula: Roberts, Bill, ‘Production in View: Allan Sekula’s Fish Story and the Thawing of Postmodernism”, Tate Papers, 18 (2012), http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/production-view-allan-sekulas-fish-story-and-thawing-postmodernism.

Transnational History and the Nation-State

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 five semesters in the School of History, I was surprised to read Rüger’s statement that transnational history “does not reject the nation-state as an entity of study.” But if one considers the nature of transnational history, this statement should not be a shock. In a way, nation-states are a prerequisite for transnational history to exist, as one cannot study the interaction between different people, cultures, and governments across borders if there are no borders to begin with. Nation-states give historians clear boundaries from which to work from, thus slightly easing their job.

The histories of these nation-states are also important to the study of transnational history, as one will be unable to understand the broader circumstances in which transnational interaction takes place. Rüger demonstrates this by showing how different historiographies painted different pictures in examining OXO: Germany and Britain appeared to be collaborating partners in many ways from the perspective of transnational history, whereas diplomatic history shows their relationship to be much more antagonistic as rivals in the global imperial theater. He thus concludes that “we cannot afford to isolate the transnational perspective from the more traditional narrative of European nation states” in the study of European history. While transnational history appears in many ways to be a cutting-edge field in academia- perhaps dangerously so- it does not discredit a very traditional method of studying history, one that has been brought into question by other approaches to the discipline.

However, the fact that one sees a completely new picture when examining the transnational history of Anglo-German relations suggests that there is much to learn from transnational history alone. Rüger’s particular example sheds a new light on a topic most European historians are all too familiar with, an achievement which would not have been possible through the more traditional lens of diplomatic history. This study of a meat extract company might actually reveal the full (and exciting) possibilities of transnational history. By undertaking a study of the links and flows between nations, one might paint an entirely new picture of a series of events or developments that could change our understanding of them.

The possibilities of transnational study are endless. Were the USA and the USSR actually polar opposites during the Cold War? Just how ‘third-world’ are third-world countries? To what extent is there a racial apartheid in Israel today? These are only a few questions I believe can be tackled with a study of transnational history, of course while not abandoning previous work done by historians of culture, nation-states, and even grand narratives.

Reading:

Rueger, Jan, ‘OXO: Or, the Challenges of Transnational History’, European History Quarterly 40/4 (2010), pp.656-http://ehq.sagepub.com/content/40/4/656.full.pdf+html

The Relationship between Transnational & Global History

The broad schools of transnational and global history often arise side by side in historical debate, but to equate the two is to ignore the fundamental questions surrounding the definitions & applications of these still emerging fields of study. This brief analysis aims to scratch the surface of the relationship between transnational and global history.

Both fields are, according to Bayly, part of a wider effort among twentieth century historians to escape the dominant but restrictive national perspective. Global history emerged primarily in the 1990s amidst academic debate around the concept of globalisation. Transnational history followed and drew inspiration from global history in a number of ways, as explored by Rüger. In both fields the spotlight is firmly fixed on the concept of mobility, be it the mobility of people, ideas, products, capital or even diseases. What’s more, each places a heavy focus on individuals within the context of international networks and transnational institutions. This of course leads to the question of what constitutes an international network or transnational institution, which should be an interesting topic for further analysis.

As well as its roots in global history, transnational history draws on the tradition from the French & German approaches of “l’histoire croisée and Transfergeschichte” in the way it attempts to develop the method of comparative history. Transnational historians are able to look at comparisons between regions, cities & communities across the globe; comparisons which are often far more helpful & natural than those between nation states.

The existence of transnational history as an alternative to global history reflects, in part, a wider acceptance of the value of the concept of transnationalism, which has manifested itself particularly strongly in sociology & geography. The emergence of multinational companies operating on a global scale has ushered in the concept of the transnational corporation, which is now deeply embedded in geographical debate. In the field of history, the term ‘transnational history’ has been preferred to global or world history by some academics, partly because studying on a truly global scale is rarely practical or even possible. The recognition that the global perspective can be a useful one remains, but transnational history gives the historian freedom to choose from a variety of spatial and temporal scales.

More generally it appears that the success of transnational history lies in its ability to combine approaches. As Rüger suggests, transnational history has the benefit of challenging the national unit without dispensing with it, and is thus able to operate at the often neglected extremities of national history. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the combination of methods is the key to improvement, in history as in many other academic fields, and for this reason transnational history should continue to be taken seriously as a helpful template for future study.

Let me return finally to the relationship between transnational and global history. Given the intention to break the restrictive mould of national history, it is perhaps unsurprising that these terms find themselves so open to different interpretations, which can cause confusion. Nevertheless, the transnational and global approaches to history both offer opportunities for the individual historian to pursue research without the pressures and limitations of historiographical tradition, and that cannot fail to enrich the discipline.

Christopher A. Bayly et al., ‘AHR Conversation: On Transnational History’, American Historical Review 11/5 (2006), pp.1441-1464

Clavin, Patricia, ‘Time, Manner, Place: Writing Modern European History in Global, Transnational and International Contexts’, European History Quarterly 40/4 (2010), pp.624-640 http://ehq.sagepub.com/content/40/4/624.full.pdf+html

Rueger, Jan, ‘OXO: Or, the Challenges of Transnational History’, European History Quarterly 40/4 (2010), pp.656-668 http://ehq.sagepub.com/content/40/4/656.full.pdf+html

Tyrrell, Ian, ‘What is transnational history’ https://iantyrrell.wordpress.com/what-is-transnational-history/

Challenges of Transnational History

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 by which historians can escape the confines of Cold War barriers of area studies. Active, collaborative engagement with the term is necessary across the academy and with a broader reading public to understand how different ‘ways of seeing’ can be integrated into all of our research.

History as an academic discipline grew up alongside the nation-state, becoming one of its principal ideological pillars. This way of practising history was (and still is) warmly received by a wider general audience who want to clearly understand where they have come from, what their ancestors did, and how they have come to be where they are. A typical national history fed to the general public offers this with a linear trajectory of cause and effect, neglecting the “space of the flows” and the historical processes constructed in the movement between places, sites, and regions.

As much as enhancing our understanding of the past, there is a duty to the general public to provide them with a better framework with which to understand what has gone before. Perhaps the strength of Transnational history can be in its refusal to pander to what we believe have become ‘popular’ tastes. With the centenary of the outbreak of the ‘First World War’ last year, for example, there was a deluge of books claiming to explain the outbreak of the War. I cannot recall seeing one that actually attempted to deconstruct the notion of a ‘World War’, whose primary theatre of operations was in a Europe that, in typical fin-de-siècle fashion, duped itself into thinking it was the centre of the world. Rather than getting bogged down in ‘inevitablist’ vs. ‘accidentalist’ debates, is the answer to experiment with new chronologies of flows, connections and exchanges, which amount to a different lens?

But this here is the real challenge as laid out by Jan Rüger: how can the transnational perspective be reconnected with the more traditional questions which are still at the heart of our understanding of modern Europe? For sure, there is increasing access to national archives, but, Matthew Connelly perceives research issues with regards to the underdeveloped history of international and transnational histories: how can we tackle these issues when we lack archive based evidence of United Nations agencies, for instance, and some of the most private foundations?

Transnational history is a product of our place in history. Express communications means that many of us transcend traditional ‘containers’. Nobody is certain what form this history will take. Collaboration, communication, and interaction appear to be the key, with a suitably careful use of language and semantics as we display our research to both an academic and more general audience.

Readings: Christopher A. Bayly et al., ‘AHR Conversation: On Transnational History’; Clavin, Patricia, ‘Time, Manner, Place: Writing Modern European History in Global, Transnational and International Contexts’; Pomeranz, Kenneth. “Social History and World History: From Daily Life to Patterns of Change.”; Rüger, Jan, ‘OXO: Or, the Challenges of Transnational History’.

Destroying Containers! The challenge of spatial dynamics

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 as it allows to experiment. There are a number of definitions or rather attempts to define transnational history or “transnationalism”, as for instance by Clavin (2005). – I am not a huge fan of the -ism, which, to me, fixes the term and closes is, not to mention other -isms that spring to mind suggesting organised, political or social movements. But I leave that aside here.

Clavin, in her article / introduction “Defining Transnationalism”, defines transnational history as being “first and foremost about people”. Is that a definition that helps? Is that not what all or most of history is about, pundits may argue? But her definition goes on: it is about “the social space that they inhabit, the networks they form and the ideas they exchange.” Later on she fleshes out the “connections” and “cleavages” between nations or the policy-making transnational or international institutions. Her focus then in this introduction to a journal special issue is primarily on institutions.

What I find intriguing is the mentioning of “space” and “social space” that meets with Kiran Patel’s brief introduction to “Transnationale Geschichte – ein neues Paradigma” (Transnational history – a new paradigm, 2005). He has a brief paragraph on the relevance of “space” in transnational history. Patel clearly argues for the relevance of the national (ie modern nation state) in the composite word transnational. Transnational, in his view, does not go against the acknowledgement of the importance and relevance of the modern (western style) nation state. But: history should not be limited by the nation and should not be told exclusively from within the borders of nation states – as an exclusively internal making of the nation state. “Instead”, he argues, “the novelty of transnational history is really the idea of offering an alternative to the dominance of a historiography structured around the nation.” Many practitioners see it more like an “onion model” – that is an additional layer or “stratum” between local, regional, national and global (Patel, Transnational History, EGO).

While transnational history in these (and other) definitions does not go without or against the nation state, it seeks to offer an alternative stratum, layer or space.

That is perhaps where some of the uneasiness about transnational history stems from. Where is the space for transnational history if not in a more traditional “container” historians tend to choose and work in: the nation, a village, a city, a historical region or a continent (to name a few). What these spaces have in common is that they are predefined and thus may have the tendency to appear as spatially fixed by boundaries – national borders or city walls.

Transnational history seems to be targeting a very different understanding of space. It is “social space” to refer back to Clavin again. The problem and challenge (perhaps fun) about social space is that it is not stable. It is not a container. Rather it is in constant flux and in constant motion. It can be fragile as Clavin (2005) points out in her reference to “epistemic communities” (Haas 1992), at least more fragile than, say, “class” as a category that suggests social cohesion (nobility, middle class). The suggestion is, partly, to practice transnational with and around “epistemic communities”, understood as “knowledge-based networks”. Rather than writing history along the timescales and chronologies of individual nations. Clavin rightly suggests that such communities allow to research along alternative slices of time and periodisations. Her suggestion of the period stretching from 1920s-1970s is an intriguing one.

I find the challenge of time and chronology a very important one that is offered by a transnational perspective. However, having to choose between time and space, personally I would opt for space and spatial questions as the even more intriguing challenge and potential innovator for our subject: history. Historians are not well-equipped or attuned to think spatially – though it is interesting to see that parallel to the rise of the term transnational we have seen space returning back on the agenda (“spatial turn”). The questions of space as a central one in transnational, I think, forces us historians to think harder or in different and novel ways about the where of history and the places & spaces of transnational history in particular. It forces us to think harder not only about chronological dynamics, but also about spatial dynamics and changes.

In order to do that we may have to borrow, learn or steal from other disciplines – but history has always done that. The cultural turn borrowed from ethnology and anthropology. The rise of social history stole from sociology. The latter one, a productive dialogue between history and sociology for a long time 1970s & 1980s, has come a bit out of fashion. But transnational history could revive such a dialogue, in particular if we are serious about alternative social spaces, people and movements across space and borders. But I can also see scope to learn from and cooperate with geography, geosciences or computer sciences that may enhance the way we think about space and the making of space through actors rather than taking space (mostly as a given territory) as a given.

For further inspiration on space and perhaps how to bring in GIS, maps and visualisation into transnational history (as we try to do later on networks and in the skills sessions) see for instance:

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/spatialhum.wordpress/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGA50TN9yCY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAreTQnXaCs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekmyWkAP4eI

Readings:

Patricia Clavin, “Defining Transnationalism.” Contemporary European History 14, no. 04 (2005): 421–39. doi:10.1017/S0960777305002705.

Kiran K. Patel, Transnationale Geschichte – ein neues Paradigma? (2005) http://www.hsozkult.de/article/id/artikel-573

Kiran K. Patel, Transnational History http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/theories-and-methods/transnational-history

Week 1: Soul Searching Introduction

Introducing the module today was less about content (we will get there next week) but on structure, rationale behind the course and its set-up as well as on routines and habits – more the bad ones we are determined to kill off this term. In a mood of confession time, these were some of the habits we addressed when we asked to confess a WEAKNESS:

–Problem: A tendency towards ‘Aversion to Writing’ (we all know this one, we have all been there, came up repeatedly) – Crack it: Start writing early, work with drafts, finish draft early and quote: ‘Eliminate wasted time!!!’ Here comes our warm in Cracking Habits vitation to come along to Snack Writing, Thursdays, 1-2pm, Room 1.15; see what you can write in an hour and have those words banked).

–Problem: Putting too much work into a day & week (while being relatively organised and productive, can leave a feeling of, well, ‘underachievement’). Crack it: Leave buffer time; plan only 6 hrs a day rather than 8-9 hrs but make them quality, focused, deep time. Make plans, stick to them – but pick a time every other week to self-critically revise what has worked and what has not.

–Problem: Multi tasking and doing too much at once. Crack it: How about say ‘No’, Konrad, and try serial work rather than multi.

–Problem: Lack of focus over longer periods of time. Crack it: Make these period shorter (start with 30minutes deep focused reading and expand; research says no more than 90 mins deep work in one stretch); take breaks and have a look at the Pomodoro Method. Don’t eat the tomato, try it.

–Problem: ‘Nervous about public speaking and sharing opinion’. Crack it: Perhaps not an easy one as it is so personal – standing in front of the group. But practice helps: at home, get out the words, time yourself, tape yourself (easier as ever today), watch your habits and gestures. Or read Quiet by Susan Cain. Now you are allowed to YouTube – go for a few TED talks and analyse techniques.

–Problem: Perfectionism. Crack it: Forget it! What is that anyway: the perfect piece, book, articles? IT DOES NOT EXIST! Just read four reviews of the same book. AND: Take a blank piece of paper, write ‘Perfectionism’ on it and throw it out of the window or, better, burn it in public. And: Share drafts, discuss them, test the product – but it will never be perfect.

–Problem: Writing every night & late evening (not being able to sleep). Crack it: Do it early. First things first in the morning, take a rock solid chunk of time each day / regularly, at a time when you have the energy that works for you. Build a rock solid writing routine. More on #THRaSH.

See you Thursday? Writing Time 1pm, Room 1.15

Welcome

Welcome to MO3351 Doing and Practicing Transnational History. Konrad Lawson and I are currently putting the final touches to our course handbook as this course is a new one for us. We are very much looking forward to working with you during the coming semester on themes along transnational and global history including practical and technical elements and skills such as mapping and visualisation.

The main focus of this module is (obviously) on transnational and global history. Along with the focus on history, we hope to create an inspring learning and teaching environment with perhaps some new and unfamiliar elements such as an ‘unconference’, blog writing, collaborative and team writing and an end of semester conference – and we hope you will enjoy the formats.

More on this and the course as a whole will follow during our first session. We will meet Tuesday, 27 January 2015, 9am, room 0.02 St Katharine’s Lodge.

Please read the two following texts by P. Clavin and K. Patel as an introduction and first flavour of the field. (Or read here what members of the Institute for Transnational and Spatial History do and think about it.) We would like to set the tone from the start that this is a module that emphasises sharing and collaborating. Please be prepared to speak to the texts as well as to what brings you to the module and what you wish to contribute to it. Ideally bring a laptop so that we can set up and introduce you to some of our shared working spaces and give you access to it.

Looking forward to seeing you on Tuesday.