<\/p>\n
The attempt in the American Historical Review to more closely pin down what it means to write transnational history certainly makes for compelling reading as it presents the developing views of six historians with very varied backgrounds on a subject which, according to the introduction, is \u201cin danger of becoming merely a buzzword among historians, more a label than a practice.\u201d<\/p>\n
The historians’ opening statements bring up various attempts to distinguish between transnational and global history, with a focus on the importance of movement being key to an understanding of the transnational. A further recurring theme is that of comparative studies, whether the comparison is between how something is done in different times or in different places or both.<\/p>\n
The conversation brings up some key problems facing transnational historians, some of which have hindered the development of the subject in the past. Patricia Seed discusses the way that transnational history requires historians to \u201csituate their topic within a much larger framework.\u201d This is undoubtedly a large challenge, as an enlarged framework requires more research in order to retain historical accuracy, whilst also necessitating an increase in conciseness in order to keep pieces of works from ballooning in both length and complexity. Simply put there is a need to process more information into a similarly sized space.<\/p>\n
There is a tangible sense of excitement at being at the forefront of a developing field that I can sense in the discussion, perhaps combined with one of intimidation at how much work has to be done before this field can be compared with others in terms of the breadth and depth of works undertaken, and this comes from historians originating from very different fields, highlighting the breadth of a transnational approach. Ideas broached during the conversation vary from social justice movements to global financial institutions.<\/p>\n
One of the biggest problems is that of definition, and finding a relative consensus on this. There seems to be a divergence in views within the historians as to whether they are writing transnational history or writing history with a transnational aspect. I feel that this is an important distinction to make, as it feels that writing history with a transnational aspect rather than focussing more specifically on transnational history could result in less innovative studies with a superficial veneer of transnational methodology on top.<\/p>\n
Overall the conversation is very thought provoking and seems to pose more questions than it answers, which is not necessarily a bad thing for an article written in this format. The concluding thoughts in the article highlight the vibrancy and potential of the field, whilst also emphasising the consideration of a younger generation of historians, which feels pertinent to our module given the way it is taught in a fashion to allow the students to take charge of \u2018doing and practising\u2019 themselves.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The attempt in the American Historical Review to more closely pin down what it means to write transnational history certainly makes for compelling reading as it presents the developing views of six historians with very varied backgrounds on a<\/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":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-readings"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5wNtZ-5p","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335","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=335"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":338,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335\/revisions\/338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/doing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}