Patricia Clavin references transnational history as a historical approach that functions as a “loose-fitting garment.” She emphasizes that world history and globalization are ‘as much about fragmentation as unity.’ In my pursuit of developing an apt understanding of transnational history, these are two explanations that have stuck with me. I’m beginning to gather that in order to grasp transnational history, some rearrangement of priority might have to be done–you have to take the time to reevaluate aspects of history in terms of their relevance to a transnational perspective. As Clavin explains, for example, the distinction between domestic policy and foreign policy become more irrelevant within the framework of transnational history. Exploring transnational history as a concept and as a practice (and Clavin’s categorization of it as a social history) has gotten me thinking back to learning about Thucydides’ Tower in a history course last year. Thucydides was a Greek historian whose work been chastised as focusing too heavily on war and politics; thus, Thucydides was trapped in his tower, where he could only see ‘politics, war, and the actions of so-called great men.’ There are a lot of different ways in which people have tried to ‘combat’ entrapment in Thucydides’ Tower, such as with the development of social history as a field. Since discovering that the history rut I’d been stuck in for the last several years had a theory to go along with it, I’ve been determined to work harder to escape the tower I’ve found myself trapped in lately. For me, the most exciting (and relatively surprising) aspect of transnational history is that it has the potential to present itself as a valuable tool for this.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n