If transnational history is intended to \u2018destroy containers\u2019, 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
While Clavin\u2019s Defining Transnationalism<\/i> and Patel\u2019s Transnational History <\/i>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 <\/i>which states that transnational history involves \u2018the people, ideas, products, processes and patterns that operate over, across, through, beyond, above, under, or in-between polities and societies\u2019.<\/i> It is unclear, to myself at least, what it means for an idea operate \u2018under\u2019 societies or indeed what the difference is between those ideas that operate \u2018beyond\u2019 or \u2018through\u2019 societies. The crux of the problem is that essentially ideas can\u2019t actually move <\/i>in a literal sense \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
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 \u2018elements\u2019 \u2013 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 clich\u00e9s that describe how ideas somehow \u2018move\u2019 amongst geographical spaces.<\/p>\n
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 \u2018containers\u2019 that hinder, rather than simplify the study of history.<\/p>\n
Readings: <\/b>Patel, Transnational History<\/i><\/p>\n
Clavin, Defining Transnational History<\/i><\/p>\n
Struck, Destroying Containers! The Challenge of Spatial Dynamics \u00a0<\/i>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/i>(http:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/2015\/01\/29\/destroying-containers-the-challenge-of-spatial-dynamics\/)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
If transnational history is intended to \u2018destroy containers\u2019, 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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[11,10,28],"class_list":["post-121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-clavin","tag-patel","tag-transnational"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5wNtZ-1X","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":122,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121\/revisions\/122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}