Reading an article published in the New York Times a few days ago reminded me of an earlier quote from Clavin, that the value of transnational history \u2018lies in its openness as a historical concept\u2019 \u2013 though arguably, it has not been effectively studied as such. This article described the recent rise of a fungus called Candida auris; a drug-resistant germ which preys on people with weakened immune systems and has been \u2018quietly spreading across the globe\u2019 (Richtel and Jacobs, 2019). Risking sounding gloomy and pessimistic, it made me question, where is the negativity in transnational history? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So far we have seen the field of transnational history largely\nfocused on positive, progressive themes like the growth of international\norganisations or inter-cultural communities, which Clavin argues has been a way\nfor the field to legitimate and sustain itself by reference to a teleological\nenthusiasm for globalization (Clavin, 2005: 424). For the sake of \u2018openness\u2019\nand balance, we should pay attention to mechanisms of exclusion and repulsion,\nas well as inclusion and attraction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Notably, global history and histories of disease have in part\naccounted for the fact that \u2018pathogens know no borders\u2019 (Harrison, 2015). Alfred\nCrosby\u2019s Columbian Exchange <\/em>is a notorious\nexample, which points to how disease has shaped the destiny of civilisations\nand played a key role in historical milestones like the demise of feudalism. Yet\nthese works in themselves have sometimes fallen foul of imposing \u2018grand\nnarratives\u2019 and overly-deterministic theories of the effect of disease on a\nglobal scale. Historians have gone on to study \u2018pandemics\u2019 across the globe,\nsuch as the global epidemics of influenza in 1889\u201393 and in 1918\u201319. Though\nthey have risked over-emphasising other scales \u2013 analysing local manifestations\nof pandemics and rarely the connections between<\/em>\nthem. Pathogenic exchanges have for example, arisen from the global trade in\nagricultural commodities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This recent New York Times article is both a story of\nexchange and circulation and of exclusion which can provide a useful example for\ntransnational history. The Candida auris germ has arisen over the past five\nyears in tandem with the increasing overuse of antibiotics and the explosion of\nresistant fungi. Thus, it has reflected a common practice around the world of\nreliance on antibiotics but also the factors easing the active spread of germs\nacross borders \u2013 the ease of travel across borders being one of them. The germ\nhas presented itself in a neonatal unit in Venezuela, swept through a hospital\nin Spain, forced a prestigious British medical centre to shut down its\nintensive care unit, and taken root in India, Pakistan and South Africa\n(Richtel and Jacobs, 2019). <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, this pandemic has been manipulated for the\npurposes of exclusion and secrecy. The public know very little about this partly\nbecause when it comes to bacteria and fungi, hospitals and local governments\nare reluctant to disclose outbreaks for fear of \u2018being seen as infection hubs\u2019\n(Ibid.). Even the Centers for Disease Control (C.D.C.) in America, given its\nagreement with states, is not allowed to make public the location or name of\nhospitals involved in outbreaks. This has facilitated a divide between\ninstitutions, state and local governments on the one hand, and the public\/patients\non the other. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The general importance of studying such topics as global health\npandemics across various disciplines is clear. Yet this recent story also\nprovides an illustrative example for how we can broaden our analytical scope when\ndoing transnational history, to study previously neglected issues which aren\u2019t\nalways positive but nonetheless greatly (sometimes more) significant. The case\nof health pandemics taken here is one of many issues in need of further study, others\nbeing the rise of criminal networks, the global spread of nationalism, informal\nties between dictatorships or international flows of corruption, to name a few.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Studying these \u2018negative\u2019 topics from the perspective of\ntransnational history can highlight forces which are simultaneously inclusive<\/em> by way of their indiscriminate\nand arbitrary nature but also exclusive<\/em>\nin terms of how they are managed and how they evolve over time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n References <\/p>\n\n\n\n