Global History and the Transnational Turn
The global and transnational turn in recent historiography studies the past through connections, comparisons, and movements that cross and exceed national and regional boundaries.
Definition
The recent historiographical turn toward analyzing the past in terms of cross-border connections, comparisons, and circulations rather than treating the nation or civilization as the natural unit of study.
Scope
This topic examines the methods and debates of global and transnational history as a leading development in contemporary historical practice: the critique of methodological nationalism and Eurocentrism, the practice of 'connected histories', comparative and entangled approaches, and the challenges of sources, scale, and language. It surveys influential interventions by Subrahmanyam, Conrad, Bayly, and others and the tensions between breadth and depth in writing history beyond the nation.
Core questions
- How do global and transnational history differ from older world history and from national history?
- What does it mean to write 'connected' or 'entangled' histories?
- How can historians manage the problems of scale, sources, and expertise these approaches raise?
- How do these methods address Eurocentrism and methodological nationalism?
Key concepts
- methodological nationalism
- connected histories
- entanglement
- comparison
- scale
Key theories
- Connected histories
- Sanjay Subrahmanyam argued for 'connected histories' that trace links and circulations across early modern Eurasia, challenging the compartmentalization of regions into separate area studies.
- Global history as a perspective
- Sebastian Conrad characterized global history less as a fixed object than as a perspective emphasizing connectivity and the global constitution of local phenomena, while warning against its pitfalls.
History
Global and transnational history grew rapidly from the 1990s as historians sought to escape the nation-state frame and Eurocentric narratives, drawing on world-systems theory, postcolonial critique, and comparative economic history such as Pomeranz's work on the Great Divergence. Programmatic statements and debates, including the 2006 AHR conversation, shaped the field.
Debates
- Breadth versus depth
- Historians debate whether global approaches sacrifice the archival depth and linguistic expertise of regional history for sweeping but thin connections.
- Comparison versus connection
- Scholars dispute the relative value of comparative methods and of tracing actual connections and entanglements between societies.
Key figures
- Sanjay Subrahmanyam
- Sebastian Conrad
- C. A. Bayly
- Kenneth Pomeranz
- Jurgen Osterhammel
Related topics
Seminal works
- subrahmanyam1997
- conrad2016b
- pomeranz2000b
Frequently asked questions
- What is the difference between global and transnational history?
- Transnational history typically follows specific flows and connections across national borders, while global history works at larger scales of connection and comparison; the terms overlap and are sometimes used interchangeably.
- Does global history replace national history?
- Not necessarily; many historians see it as complementary, adding connective and comparative dimensions rather than abolishing the study of nations and regions.