MO3351 Doing and Practicing Transnational and Global History

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 differentiate between these approaches, and the arguments in these readings helped me gain clarity. As the AHR moderator stated, these approaches (comparative, international, world, and global history) are characterized by a breakaway from the singular nation-state as the primary focus of history and this longer legacy of ethnocentrism.

Global or world history, according to the participants of the AHR conversation and Saunier, focuses on the history of globalization and international-level processes and changes. It is broad in its timeframe as it includes history before modern-day nation-states were formed, and has a history of focusing on the nation as the most significant unit for understanding societies, processes, and polities. 

I find distinguishing Comparative history from Transnational history more complicated because both heavily focus on regional comparisons and connections. Saunier argues that the difference between the two approaches lies in the way comparative history was developed, as it was used as a tool to trace differences within national trajectories. Like Global/World history, it still assumes the nation-state to be the main setting. 

Saunier’s second chapter on connections developed my understanding of transnational history. From my understanding, Transnational history follows the threads and lines of connections despite and in accordance with the nation-state. It acknowledges that the nation-state is an important unit for the study of history and the general organization of societies; however, it does not limit its study to these distinctions. It studies how the nation-state as a unit formed and destroyed connections, but it is comfortable stepping outside the nation to observe both regional/local and international webs. For example, the conversation about how high-technology infrastructure connected and disconnected parts of Europe truly conveys the broad scope of transnational history. Studying how power lines and grids created international connections and integrated markets while simultaneously strengthening the nation-state’s borders and power was a fascinating example of the complexities of the nation-state as a unit of study. It also showcased how transnational history can compare more than a couple of nations to historicize globalization more in depth.

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 context. 

Saunier, by virtue of being the only author of the work, provides a far more compact and programmatic definition of transnational history as a concept. He defines it in three ‘big issues’: historicising contacts between communities, polities, and societies; assessing how ‘foreign’ groups contribute to ‘domestic’ features, and vice versa; and recovering actors and processes that operate between, across, and through self-contained entities. However, he repeatedly makes it clear that the landscape around transnational history is in constant flux, meaning his definition is not be all end all, and may itself be subject to revision. Similar to global history, he centres transnational history in the ‘age of territoriality,’ defined by Charles Maier as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, though Saunier generally has the last 200–250 years in view. 

The AHR ’roundtable’ meanwhile is comparatively ‘messy’ but provides a far deeper insight into how different historians may emphasise certain aspects of transnational history (diaspora, ethnic-rights movements, migration, etc.). Several contributors also argue that transnational history is closely connected to fields such as postcolonial studies, feminism, and human-rights scholarship, suggesting that a focus on circulation and networks can avoid some of the pitfalls of ‘global’ approaches that risk greatly simplifying on-the-ground differences between societies. 

Most of Saunier’s writing focuses on distinguishing transnational history from global history, with world history receiving less attention. However, he does provide a simple differentiation between the three based primarily on the time scale they focus on and their ambition. He argues that world history generally spans around 5,000 years and is the ‘most ambitious’ for this reason; global history focuses on the last 500 years and on how the planet integrated and began to merge over that period; and transnational history has the shortest range of the last 200–250 years, resting on Maier’s age of territoriality. He also groups world history alongside a multitude of other ‘relational’ methods of analysing history under the same broad umbrella, arguing that all place a ‘common emphasis’ on how relations impact history. 

The AHR roundtable provides the best, or at least the most, perspectives on the delineation between transnational history, global history, and world history. In broad strokes, the contributors argue that transnational history involves an emphasis on the ‘movement,’ ‘circulation,’ or ‘interpenetration’ of everything from people and goods to more immaterial things such as institutions and ideas. Several of them even suggest that these three methodologies are best seen as overlapping frames for approaching history, rather than rival paradigms, and that they should be chosen pragmatically rather than applied as blanket interpretive frameworks. 

With this in mind, it is useful to employ Saunier and the AHR roundtable to answer two different questions on the topic of transnational history: 

Saunier, to answer ‘what is transnational history?’ 

The AHR roundtable to answer how a transnational lens differs from other pre-existing world-history surveys and globalisation-focused history. 

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 19^th century Egypt and the Levant. Clavin highlights that one of the key motivations of transnational history is to allow for historical study at “sub or supra-state level”. I think this is a fascinating lens through which we can examine events and ideas. The history we teach in the UK revolves around great events and state boundaries. This means that much of what we are taught ends up seeming like isolated events which occur in a vacuum. We often neglect the impact events and ideas have across the world. This links to the idea that history is Eurocentric, which Clavin highlights by citing Chakrabarty’s famous call to ‘provincialise Europe’. I am very interested in postcolonialism and believe, as many scholars do, that a transnational approach is the best way to address the impact of colonialism. Europe not only drew the borders of the world but also set out the way we study history. The best way to truly understand the world is to approach it with a transnational lens to see beyond arbitrary borders.

Jan Rugers’ piece was particularly illuminating. The OXO cube is a brilliant example to use to show how even the most mundane of items can help us show how interconnected global history is. I found the political distortion of the OXO cube (its use as propaganda) very interesting. This illustration also importantly illustrated how the sources we use as historians can be distorted by those we are studying.

Finally, something which intrigued me in both the seminar and the readings is how individualistic transnational history is. When encountering terms like transnational and global, one instantly thinks that historians in this area focus on large-scale trends and global phenomena. What struck me about the use of transnational history is how concerned it is with the individual. It seems to restore the historical agency of many of those it studies. Especially those who have been historically marginalised or forgotten because their actions did not sit neatly within national boundaries. I am very much looking forward to getting to know much more about transnational history and beginning my project.

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 them and grapple with their purpose in various fields of historical research. The problem of periodization that Clavin highlighted is one that I have been exposed to in my earlier time as a history student and am thus somewhat familiar with. However, it was interesting to hear how the problem of periodization is also something that transnational historians are involved in. The idea that, for example, the recognized marker for the beginning of World War I can be argued is euro-centric and ignoring relevant phenomena outside of Europe is one that has stuck with me since reading Clavin’s text. I entirely agree that, in light of this point, much of the West’s periodization can be found to be euro-centric and guilty of perpetuating a damaging tendency towards euro-centrism generally in historical approaches. On this spectrum, I have been considering Jan Ruger’s text and how it pinpoints certain weaknesses or potential weaknesses in transnational history; one being that it perhaps ignores traditional methodologies that work or that it dismiss national boundaries in historical questions when in fact, these boundaries are fundamental to the questions or issues at hand. My takeaway, which Ruger ultimately concluded with as well, is that transnational history is an important historical approach for widening our scope of historical phenomena. However, if used just for the sake of it and without careful consideration as to what one is applying it to, the approach has the potential to discard important factors of the area of history it is looking at and thus the approach loses its purpose and value. Therefore, returning to Clavin’s point, it seems beneficial that historiographical problems such as periodization are put under a transnational light in order to move away from unnecessary national boundaries and euro-centric narratives. In this sense, it appears vital to apply transnational history to historiographical instances where traditional methodologies are clearly not working. The question then becomes, however, to counter Ruger’s argument, what are ‘traditional’ questions or narratives and when can we say that they are not working within a ‘traditional’ historiographical framework? I look forward to exploring this question further as the module develops and my knowledge of transnational history, and global history, grows.

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, it is crucial to note that this is not so much as a reaction but as a supplement to the conventional methodological nationalism in history. The historiographical salience of the nations, instead of being repudiated, was further enriched and nuanced by historians’ turning towards their interconnection, no longer treating them as compartmentalised monads (both in determining the scope of research and in conducting historical analysis). This leads to the crucial caveat that in transnationalism, the national and the transnational are not diametrically opposed. As Saunier proposed in his discussion on “middle grounds” as sites of transnational connection, the growth of nation-states, while traditionally seen as stifling these liminal situations, could also bolster their vibrance as nationalist enterprises breed new cross-border connections and intermediaries. This was given a more specific elaboration on Kreuder-Sonnen case study on Poland where the transnational engagements of Polish medics were closely bound with the Polish national cause, both before and after Poland was restored to her statehood. Therefore, it is crucial to note that there was not a dichotomy between the national and transnational approaches in terms of the historical importance of nation.

That said, as with all discussions on the nation have to ponder, the acceptance of nation (and inter-nation connection) as subjects of analysis does not mean that the concept is taken for granted. In Saunier’s point of view, the temporal applicability of transnational history is largely confined to the past 200-250 years before which nations and nation-states had barely come to predominate — Bayly was even stricter in saying that applying transnational history to the pre-1914 era would be problematic. Such caution was surely shared by Kreuder-Sonnen when she specifically addressed that when referring to “Poland” and “Polish” in nineteenth-century and early-twentieth-century contexts, there was no intention to assign or presume a certain national allegiance or identity at play. However, it is also questionable whether transnationalists are making a rod on their own back by being too obsessed with the qualification of nations. For Seed, despite transnationalism being essentially of present terms and conceptions (i.e. the nation) on to the past, this can still be done legitimately by focusing on the so-called analogous cases. As we can see in two empirical essays this week, there was neither a German nation-state nor a Polish one in the mid-eighteenth century, but this did not prevent Knotter and Kreuder-Sonnen to speak of German cigar-makers and Polish medics. Indeed, this should be proceeded with caution (as Kreuder-Sonnen has excellently done so in the beginning of her work). But more importantly, this might demonstrate to us that the transnational scope can be extended to historical scenarios further back in time that feature extensive cross-border connections (be they between subnational, national or supranational entities), so long as historians constantly guard themselves against certain arbitrary essentialisations pertinent upon the nation. There can never be too much caution with the thorny task of defining the nation, but the transnational historians might lose a great deal of inspiration by focusing solely on the nation and not interaction.

Lastly, one thing I noticed is that the AHR panel formed an interesting conversation with the Clavin essay from last week. For Clavin, the essence of applying a transnational scope to the modern European context is in the globalisation of European events, studying “how European history has been universalized into international agency”. This stands in interesting contrast, if not opposition to his previous statement on transnationalism’s commitment to fragmentation and diversity. Indeed, while Clavin’s suggestion does help to break down the compartmentalisation of European history vis-a-vis the rest of the world, the advocacy of its globalisation (without mentioning the influence the other way around) can be perpetuate Western-centrism by seeing the West as the sole unit that can boast of global significance. In the AHR panel, I would argue, the merits of transnationalism were better appreciated by the spokespeople who in particular warn against the essentialisation of the global experience, especially regarding modernisation and development which have often granted the West the privileged spot as the enlightening beacon. Instead, much more emphasis was laid on multisited modernity, multi-directional flow of ideas, and the instances of domestication and acculturation across localities. As Beckert said convincingly, “Modernity rests just as much on African slaves, Indian peasants, Chinese traders, and Arab mathematicians as on Lancashire mill workers, Scottish philosophers, German chemists, and American political theorists.” Transnational histories could therefore inform as well as benefit from more discussions on “which nations” as well as those on “what is a nation”.

A huge congratulations to everyone on some fantastic presentations. I watched quite a few of them, and I loved hearing about everyone’s different ideas. Everyone was so engaging and knowledgeable about her individual projects. I also want to say a huge thank you to everyone for our unconference hours, feedback on the short presentations, and of course a massive thank you to Bernhard and Milinda for the constant jokes and support. It has been a true joy partaking in your banter and learning from your intellect. Thank you for making my last semester here enjoyable and informative.

Marion

First of all, I could listen to you talk all day. Your accent is magnificent. Have you ever considered audiobooks?

Your topic is fascinating, and you did a wonderful job explaining it in a clear and concise manner. I was very appreciative of the different historiographical aspects of your presentation and how they each tie into each other. Have you researched the link between American national identity and the construction of wilderness? It is rooted in many of the same ideologies it seems you are drawing on in your long essay – man and nature as necessarily separate entities etc. If you have any interest in exploring this topic for your long essay, I have quite a few sources that could be very interesting to you!

Avery

Great presentation, Avery! It was super enjoyable to listen to and very informative. How have you found postcolonialism as a theoretical framework? Postcolonial feminism is an interesting theory, and clearly well suited for your research in Ireland and India. I was wondering if you have ever worked with decoloniality? Maria Lugones has some really interesting articles about decolonial feminism that might be helpful and interesting to your work. She explains that colonisation did not simply create the colonised but also forcibly introduced European understandings of gender relations, social patterns, and disrupted the cosmological understandings of invaded communities. This erased the pre-colonial conception of sex and gender and replaced it with European-produced-knowledge which separates ‘sex’ and ‘race’ on an axis. She argues that as ‘woman’ and ‘black’ are separable yet homogenous categories on the axis, their intersection “shows us the absence of black women rather than their presence”. Apologies if you have already read Lugones and I am mansplaining but I find her work really interesting and thought she might be helpful for your research! Goodluck with the rest of your paper and congratulations on an excellent presentation.

Kathleen

Hey, Kathleen! Great job on your presentation. In a funny turn of events, my essays have both taken a turn towards tourism and dictatorship, respectively. It was an interesting presentation to listen to because unlike some of the other topics I felt I had a bit more context given my prior research! The part about Intourist was particularly interesting. The aspect of your presentation about minority cultures “clinging to their past” reminded me of some research I have done about the concept of “conservation refugees”. I saw your comment on my “constructing culture” post and wanted to respond to it here as it pertains to your pres! You talked about the threat to biodiversity and general environmental degradation in national parks and other nature enclosures as a result of the tourism industry. I have worked with this topic but from an indigenous rights perspective that I thought I would share with you! This is a bit from an essay I wrote ages ago:

Indigenous dispossession through protected enclosures is an ongoing process that has severely impacted indigenous development across the country. According to Cultural Survival Quarterly (2004), in the last 150 years, 12 percent of the world’s surface has been protected in the form of 100,000 enclosures. Of those lands, 50% encompass traditionally indigenous lands… In America, this percentage rises to 80% (McKay and Caruso 2004). National parks and other protected areas have made “conservation refugees” (ibid.) out of millions of indigenous peoples; national parks are not a colonial act of the past but a pillar of the enduring settler colonial structure of oppression.

Also: The final statement from the indigenous delegates in the closing ceremony of the Fifth World Parks Congress meeting in 2003 read “first we were dispossessed in the name of king and emperors, later in the name of State development and now in the name of conservation.”

I thought this might be interesting food for thought for you to check out for your long essay or further reading!

I have never been one for deep-diving into primary sources such as letters and diaries much to my previous history professors’ lament. I have tended towards secondary sources or other forms of empirical data. It was therefore interesting to read Andrade article “Toward a Global Microhistory” in which he utilises both letters and journals to construct an analysis based on the presumed internal feelings and opinions of their authors. This is definitely an approach that I personally am not used to and am wary of as it read almost like a novel rather than a research/historiographical paper. The last time I really looked at microhistory was in HI2001 and this article brought me back to when I had to read The Return of Martin Guerre by Natalie Zemon Davis for Ana Del Campo’s tutorial. We had to read the full book and discuss it in class. Davis drew on personal accounts of the presiding judges as well as “registers of Parlementary Sentences” and “Notorial Contracts” to establish a sort of context for the trial that she was writing about and to gauge the reactions that the French peasants in her story might have. I haven’t thought about this piece since I read it and reading Andrade’s article on microhistory and his use of primary documents such as diaries and journals really reminded me of it. I think this type of history is interesting and definitely useful in some cases. Is it for me? No. Am I grateful it exists? Absolutely. It is fun to read and allows you to really immerse yourself in the environment in which the author is writing.

The Presentations deal with many of the aspects of transnational which we have discussed over the course of the semester. Transnational history is to a large extent revisionist, and this can be seen in presentations such as Will’s which focus on non-Western history or Laura’s on the nation. The presentations also display the opportunity afforded by transnational history to discuss alternative categories of time and space. For example key moment’s can be examined as transnational moments as George describes the 60s or Jemma and Jamie’s discussions of conferences. Spaces can also be transnational and the presentations show how climate can be a useful key to transnational history. Geography of course stretches across and beyond nations which form common dividing lines in the writing of history. As evident from Marion’s and George’s presentations climate is an already existing transnational category which can provide the historian with a transnational focus on events commonly studied in isolation. Transnational history appears not to be prescriptive as to a certain methodological approach and can incorporate areas from outside history such as anthropology. It also lends itself to a wide variety of techniques such as the analysis of maps and images as well as written sources. One aspect of transnational history which was evident in many of the presentations was the connection it has to experience. Focussing less on states and instead on a complex transnational world naturally leads one to consider how it was navigated and understood by individuals. One question which remains important for transnational history though, is that of extent. It is always interesting to consider how important and widely experienced these connections are as well as the simple fact of their existence.  

Hi Laura C. really excellent presentation, I love your structure and the way you utilized and organized sources to present a coherent and effective argument. The specificity too, in which you are placing your argument, I believe will serve you well and help establish a fleshed out argument for yourself. 

The only comment I’d recommend is in regard to possible obervations of how Vichy, and its fascism, interacted with the French colonial empire under its control. This could open up avenues of comparison to the Italian which may inspire rich analytical products. Of course this would expand the scope of the argument quite a bit, so more of a contemplation than a hard recommendation. 

Also, great presentation Laura H., really loved the structuring of your presentation and even for the un-initiated it was quite easy to follow your subject so extra commendations for that. 

The only recommendation I have is that the language section seems an especially ripe one to tackle, so extra research in that area may be well warranted and reap useful results. Other than that stellar job! 

I really enjoyed going through everyone’s presentations, I am so impressed in how everyone came up with such unique and interesting topics! I also really loved this class, it not only challenged me academically, but also enlightened me about the possibility of transnational studies and how it can be applied in any area of history. And of course everyone in the class was amazing, as well as Bernhard and Milinda. I was always happy to go to class and excited to hear everyone’s opinions and ideas. 😀

Sophie: I really love your research topic! It is so unique and focusing on Czechoslovakia and South Africa combines two areas and a relationship that is overlooked within historical analysis. Your powerpoint is very well made and covers all the progress of your research project so far. It shows how much work you have done so far, and the questions at the end help show where you still want to go with your research. You seem to be in a really good place so far!

Your understanding of methodology is impressive, and I really like how you are applying your research to look at trends of the global world. Specifically when you mentioned the “transnational quality of human rights.” Being able to connect to a wider topic shows how well researched your project is at this point! 

Marion: Your topic is very interesting as well, as you said, very relevant to today’s climate crisis, as it can not be combated without a transnational effort. Being able to see the importance of transnational analysis years ago shows the continual need for transnational analysis throughout history and a transnational action today. Your presentation is very well organized and shows that you have prepared well so far. Your research questions are clear and you have a clear understanding of the historiography, as well as the gaps within existing research that you are able to cover within your research project. I also like how you address the integration of topics together, showing how you will bring a new way of thinking into your historical analysis. Your presentation shows that you have researched everything well so far and you have a clear understanding of the topic. 

Watching everyone’s presentation, I feel a bit of regret on my own, as mine was more focused on the topic rather than my research project. But I am still happy with mine, and watching everyone else’s presentations helps put in perspective what I need to get done to turn my essay in in two weeks. I am excited for the next couple weeks to finish working and turn in a completed project!

 I mistakenly commented on people’s presentations on their previous posts so I am now compiling them here in my final blog post! I have thoroughly enjoyed reading about everyone’s project progression and wish everyone the best of luck. 

George: Hi! I just watched your conference presentation and I am glad to see I am not the only one who decided to shift their leading question for the long essay. I particularly liked how you went over how you responded and adapted to your initial project proposal feedback – it’s quite helpful to substantively see how your project has evolved not only thematically but also methodologically. I’m glad you’re engaging with this subject as it is a newer field of history and its research utilizes methods across disciplines. I thoroughly enjoyed watching your conference presentation as I have a little bit of background environmental history and historiography (and I am a big fan of David Attenborough). I wrote a historiographical essay in HI2001 on William Beinart and Peter Coates’s Environment and History: The taming of nature in the USA and South Africa (1995) – while it has been a minute since I last picked it up I remember them discuss at length the role media and news played in disseminating environmental movements. They also do a good job of incorporating anthropological sources and first hand accounts into their cross-analysis. I’m not sure how much this will pertain to your research but if you find yourself stumped methodologically at any point, I think this book might be useful to draw inspiration from as they engage with similar methods you mention. I have encountered similar issues with a focus on the post-Soviet space as most anything deemed as progressive literature within this region is difficult to unearth. I have noticed the USSR had a tendency to destroy/conceal historical evidence and accounts that did not align with their views or political agenda… I wish I could say differently for the current Russian state but I have still found this to be an issue in interacting with modern Russian sources. I also think a non-human actor as your subject is a very interesting and refreshing way to go about this topic. Best of luck as you continue your research!

Laura: Hi! I really like how you are approaching a topic with lots of preexisting historiographical debates and applying a comparative methodology to build off of and establish a new perspective on the matter. I have been hesitant to commit to a comparative methodology for my own project but I have found your findings so far in your final conference presentation to be  quite comforting. I had previously not considered anti-semitism out of a German context, and expect that a comparison between Vichy France or Fascist Italy will yield fruitful analysis and results. While I do not have much background on Vichy France or Fascist Italy, I would recommend looking back on Marc Bloch along with Haupt and Kocka if you find yourself needing more research on the comparative methodology. I am currently reading them and think that they will definitely be helpful to refer back to for my personal project. I really like the idea of comparison as a means of understanding transnational phenomenon which I believe you mentioned in the second slide. I think you have a very new and fresh approach to this topic and am excited for your project to develop further. Best of luck!

I really enjoyed looking through everyone’s presentations this week, they are all incredibly well done and reflected a super interesting mix of methods, styles and interests. Every project looks fascinating, and I have no doubt they are going to lead to incredible final pieces of work.

Feedback-

Marion- Your opening slides on the Anthropocene were fascinating, it’s a topic I have always associated with the last few decades and the way that you engaged with it to broaden its scope was done really well, both in terms of research, and the way you presented it as well.

You clearly have a very strong knowledge of your historiography, which will be invaluable in your final essay. In the same vein, your awareness of the defects of each branch of historiography you considered will no doubt allow you to weave the different narratives together in a way that is new and exciting! I think your project looks incredible, and I would love to see the final piece!

In terms of your research and sources. It looks like you have enough actors to write a really erudite piece already. The one potential thing I would say (though you have probably thought about this already) is that looking at your source list, it is almost entirely localised within the geographic areas of the revolutions which you want to study. Revolutionary discourses are arguably a global phenomenon during this time and there may be writers in conflicts such as the Latin American wars of Independence, the United Irishmen’s Rebellion or the Serbian Revolution, who engage with climate and human impact on the environment in a revolutionary context. More excitingly still, there may be nexuses where ideas from all these external areas meet to shape the intellectual currents in your states of study.

This may well not be a route you want to go down, but it’s the only piece of advice I could really give to what was an incredibly coherent presentation and a really cool project.

Jemma- Firstly, I really want to commend you on how good I thought your presentation was. It was incredibly clear, concise and informative.

Whilst I haven’t done much research on Eurocentrism in women’s organisations, I have done a decent amount relating to peace movements which has led to a little overlap, and I think you have found a really important research gap. Additionally, the way you identify Eurocentrism as a key feature, using images and maps in conjunction with secondary work, was really effective at getting your arguments across. If you were not already planning on doing so, I would recommend discussing the usage of images in your essay/project with Milinda and Bernhard.

Looking at your conference map, I noticed that as well as excluding Asia, Africa and South America, there were also no conferences in much of Eastern Europe. I wonder women’s movements in this ‘semi peripheral’ area could be productive for your research? Though it may well also be outside the scope of what you want to do.

Additionally, my research on women’s peace movements so far has identified class as a really important aspect which characterises peace movements, their aims and their members. If you have access to attendance lists for some of these conferences, I think it would be super interesting to apply an intersectional methodology looking at both race and class and how these shaped different groups.

Overall, though, I envy the coherence with which you have put together your arguments. I learned a decent amount about structuring an argument just from watching your presentation! It looks like it will be an incredibly strong and focussed piece of work. Really good luck!

Sophie- Your presentation had by far the most surprising title of any of them, but after watching it, your argument really made sense! How you managed to spot the connections between South Africa and Czechoslovakia is completely beyond me, but it makes for a super interesting and original perspective.

As projects go, yours seemed in super impressive shape. Strong research questions, coupled with a large primary source base and a decent chunk of secondary reading.

The one thing I saw in your research that I thought I could add to was your further question on whether the Czechoslovakian government’s solidarity with South Africa was fake. Whilst a fascinating question by itself, I would suggest that it could be really interesting to explore whether Czechoslovakian resistance movements’ solidarity with South Africa was genuine as well, and if not, what motivations underpinned their employment of anti-apartheid rhetoric.

The reason that I make this point is that in a recent conversation with Malaka Shwaikh, she mentioned how Palestinian dissidents were consciously avoiding the appropriation of BLM rhetoric to avoid stealing the limelight from them in an act of ‘fake solidarity’.

To be honest though, it seems like you are in a really good spot in terms of preparing for this final essay. You already have enough to write a very interesting essay studying a very unorthodox pairing of countries in a very productive way!

I can’t believe this is the last blog post of the semester! I loved watching everyone’s presentations. It’s been so wonderful to see how projects have grown from our initial brainstorming sessions. Making presentations and having discussions with classmates have really helped me in honing into essential questions for my project. And, I’ve read some really interesting articles per recommendations. I hope some of the following comments do the same for others!

Comment on Jemma’s Presentation –

Hi Jemma! Great presentation. Your use of images and mapping made it very engaging and allowed you draw conclusions on the women attending the conferences with support from readings. I found it very interesting that you noted recent scholar’s opinions on the All-Asian Women’s Conference and formed your own conclusion on its importance. You made a very strong and well thought out claim that ‘it was an important and significant challenge to western feminism and western dominated transnational organizations, especially through demonstrating women’s agency and how this affected western attitudes towards non-western women.’ Have you read ‘Suyatin Kartowiyono: A Nationalist Leader of the Indonesian Women’s Movement’ by Susan Blackburn? It analyzes the life of a leader of the women’s movement in Indonesia. It might raise some questions for you on the leaders of these women’s organizations and their intentions on contributing to and leading women’s movements. I skimmed the first few pages and if not helpful for your project, it may just be an interesting read! Here’s the link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1qv1g3.8

I’ve loved seeing how your project has developed this semester!

Comment on George’s Presentation –

Hi George!

Your constructive criticism of your previous assignments is very inspiring! It’s really helpful to be able to reflect on if an assignment actually aligns with the ethos of the historiography. Although we are doing history, cultural anthropology can lend a helpful hand to understanding how different peoples respond to climate crisis and take political and social action. It might be interesting to consider how the environmental movements affected something like literature. Ecocriticism, though holding a longer history, boomed during the 70s to address environmental justice. You could look at texts like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Here are two readings that I find interesting:

Introduction: Ecocriticism and Environmental History

Hannes Bergthaller

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26569521

“No More Eternal than the Hills of the Poets”: On Rachel Carson, Environmentalism, and the Paradox of Nature

Hannes Bergthaller

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26569522

Ecocriticism could help you analyze the rhetorical power and strategies of these environmental movements and their actors. I can’t wait to see how it all turns out!

I was really impressed by the quality of all the presentations, which have given me a lot to think about to refine my own work. Here are my comments on three of them.

Georges – Why and how did similar environmental movements develop in the East and West of Europe in the late Twentieth Century?

I really enjoyed your presentation, which was well-structured, clear and honest about your questions and difficulties. Overall, I think that your project has gained so much strength since we discussed it during the unconference.

I like the way in which you manage to contextualise Chernobyl within the Global Sixties: not only does this bring a socio-political perspective which – as you rightly say – greatly complements your initial emotional approach and argumentation, but it also provides a very interesting outlook on the period. I had never thought of seeing it as a series of environmental disasters and of (non)reactions by governments and activists! Has this also provided a way out of your fear of being too Eurocentric?

Methodologically speaking, I think that using micro-histories is very strong. I would nevertheless try to connect them to transnational activist movements in order to depart even more from the individual and national analysis of the impacts of governments’ non-reactions to environmental disasters, however similar they may be across borders.

Lastly, I totally sympathise with your struggle about having to guess the emotional impacts of disasters: I encountered a similar issue as I was trying to understand how fears caused by El Nino events led to wider diffusions of climatic theories. Although I am sure they played a role, I can’t really prove it, so I am only going to use those fears as an element of background.

Looking forwards to hearing/reading more about the development of your work!

Sophie – A transnational liberation: the anti-apartheid movement and the making of human rights in Czechoslovakia and South Africa

I really learned a lot listening to your presentation. As the (little) history I have ever learned about either South Africa or Czechoslovakia has always been absolutely separated, I was compelled by these unexpected connections!

Like for Georges, I think that one of the greatest strengths of your project is that you manage to discuss these connections within a wider context and make some very interesting points about their relations to anti-imperialist struggles.

I am impressed by the diversity of the sources you are using and your analysis of Fordburg Fighter: the journey of an MK volunteer is very insightful. Taking a micro-history approach through memoirs to complement the analysis of high politics is very well-thought: the individual and lived experience perspective usually richly connects processes and ideas otherwise perceived as totally separated.

As I am myself studying the transnational circulation and appropriation of discourses, you have given me a lot to reflect on!

I would be very interested in reading your finished paper!

Will – A Civilization’s Destruction: Examining Rapa Nui and its interactions with the exterior world

Your project looks both fascinating and very complex. If I had to study an entire civilisation over such a long time-period, I would not know where to start from…This is the object of my first question: on what aspects of the Rapa Nui’s civilisation are you focusing (language, art, livelihoods, …)? I would be curious to know how you chose them and what type of primary sources you are using.

My second question relates to the scope of your project: I might not have understood well, but are you studying Rapa Nui for itself or are you using it as a case study to make an argument about imperial domination or the impacts and resistance to colonialism?

I was also interested in the argument you make that labelling Rapa Nui people as ecociders discredits their culture and precipitates its disappearance. I look forwards to learning more about it.

It seems strange that this is the last blog post for this module! I have really enjoyed forming, adjusting, and applying my ideas and research towards my final essay. I found that creating my presentation was really helpful to start piecing together my research and analysis ahead of writing. It helped give me a feeling of the structure, and also get a better idea of where the gaps in my research are. I’ve realised, including from some comments from Milinda, that my essay could benefit from more primary sources from non-Western women directly, and further research and engagement with global intellectual history – aspects I will be looking into more in the coming days.

I really enjoyed watching all the presentations, and it was really interesting to see all the examples of ways that transnational and comparative approaches could be used and applied to different contexts, times, and topics. After watching them, a few thoughts sprung to mind which I have highlighted below.

First of all, George. I really enjoyed watching your presentation, and found it really clear to understand and well structured. I think taking a more socio-political approach rather than a more emotive one is a good idea and leads to a more grounded approach. This said, I think that this does not mean you cannot include some more emotive aspects in places.

In terms of primary sources, I think newspapers are a really good option. With my research, I have found they provide both insights into what issues and news were prominent, and how they were covered and portrayed. As well as the New York Times which you mentioned, are there perhaps any publications or newsletters from any of the movements themselves? These could maybe, for example, give more detailed information to their goals, policies, and members.

Furthermore, you mentioned mapping, and I really recommend this. I did this with some locations of conferences for my project, and found the visual aspect really useful as an alternative way of understanding the spread of locations. I know you mentioned doing it to ensure you have covered both the East and West, but perhaps this could also lead to other insights, such as if any regions had a particularly large number of environmental movements developing.

Avery, it was really exciting to see how your project has been developing since we worked together at the unconference! I found your presentation really interesting and also quite relevant to mine: a lot of my focus is also on the ‘double subaltern’, including their attempts to gain their own agency, and I have also been engaging with gender and postcolonial theory. I think you have so many ideas, aspects you want to look at, and theories to engage with. As I have also done quite a lot of research and work towards subaltern women in particular, you have reminded me of the usefulness of engaging with Orientalism and Said, for example, more directly.

When looking at how nations who have experienced famine responded differently to hunger strikes, I am not sure what sort of sources you have so far, but one possibility for primary sources could be women’s journals. These are a key source that I have been using, and while they aren’t always from the locations you are focusing on, I have found they often report on various issues around the world, especially those publications of international and transnational organisations. Some examples of journals from national organisations and movements could include Equal Rights, Common Cause, and Stri-Dharma (although I have had translation issues with the latter), while some international examples include Pax International and Jus Suffragii.

Finally Sigi – I really enjoyed watching your presentation, and found it very well structured. You conveyed information really well, both verbally and visually, and as someone that knows minimal about Rìo de la Plata, I found it easy to follow along and understand. I think your use of SPSS is really innovative, and from what you have said it sounds like you are gaining some interesting pieces of data and analysis. In particular, I think the links of the shipping trades to the anti-English and anti-Spanish movements is an interesting research area and point of analysis, and one that stood out to me during your presentation. It really shows the significance and impact of these trading connections, and their wider implications in the world.

I hope these comments may be somewhat useful, and hope the rest of your research and writing goes well!