No Borders: Beyond the Nation-State

By Thomas Bender
Thomas Bender is a professor of history and university professor of the humanities at
New York University. This essay is adapted from A Nation Among Nations: America's
Pace in !ord "istory# to $e pu$ished this month $y "i and !ang# a division of %arrar#
&traus and 'irou(. )opyright * +,,- $y Thomas Bender. The artice first appeared on
the we$site of the )hronice of "igher .ducation and is reprinted with permission.
/ want to propose the end of American history as we have known it. 0.nd0 can mean $oth
0purpose0 and 0termination#0 and / have in mind $oth those meanings. / want to draw
attention to the end to which nationa histories# incuding American history# have $een
put. They are taught in schoos and $rought into pu$ic discourse to forge and sustain
nationa identities# presenting the sef1contained nation as the natura carrier of history.
That way of writing and teaching history has e(hausted itsef. /n its pace# / want to
ea$orate a new framing for U.&. history# one that re2ects the territoria space of the nation
as a sufficient conte(t and argues for the transnationa nature of nationa histories.
The nation is not free1standing and sef1contained3 it is connected with and partiay
shaped $y what is $eyond it. Nineteenth1century nationaist ideoogy# which $ecame
em$edded in the deveopment of history as a discipine# has o$scured the actua
e(perience of nationa societies and has produced a narrow parochiaism. / want to
encourage a more cosmopoitan sense of $eing an American# to have us recogni4e the
historica interconnections that have made America's history go$a history even as it is
nationa# provincia even as it shares in the genera history of human $eings on this
panet.
Nationa histories# ike nation1states# are modern deveopments. The first nationa history
of the United &tates# 5avid 6amsay's History of the American Revolution, was pu$ished
in 789:. /n fact# 6amsay hed off pu$ishing it unti the )onstitution was ratified.
"istory ; and especiay history in the schoos ; contri$uted mightiy to the acceptance
of the nation during the ne(t two centuries. /t $ecame the core of civic education in
schoos and other institutions devoted to making peasants# immigrants# and provincia
peopes into nationa citi4ens. That category of citi4en was supposed to trump a other
sources of identity. 6egiona# inguistic# ethnic# cass# reigious# and other forms of
soidarity or connection that were either smaer or arger were to $e radicay
su$ordinated to nationa identity. To sustain the idea of a nationa citi4en# the nationa
space was to $e firmy $ounded# and popuation and cuture were presumed to $e
homogeneous. /n return# the modern nation1state promised to protect its citi4ens at home
and a$road. <ne artifact that marks $oth the importance of $orders and the promise of
protection is the passport ; a 7:th1century innovation.
/f this concept of the nation is specific to the past two centuries# sti we are so
comforta$e with it as to refer routiney to events that occurred a thousand years ago
within the present $orders of %rance# for e(ampe# as 0medieva %rench history.0 /n this
age of tak a$out go$ai4ation# muticuturaism# and diasporas# ceary our e(perience
does not match up to such nationaist assumptions. =ife is simpy more compe(.
/n the past few years# some of the most innovative and e(citing schoarship in American
history has $een framed in ways that do not necessariy tie it to the nation1state ; work
on gender# migrations# diasporas# cass# race# ethnicity# and other areas of socia history. /f
that schoarship has not succum$ed to the nationaist framing# neither has it atered nor
dispaced it. /t has grown up $eside the oder defaut narrative that we a carry around in
our heads. /t has $rought forward new knowedge a$out previousy unstudied or
insufficienty recogni4ed groups and themes in American history# $ut it has not changed
the dominant narrative structure. The unitary ogic of nationa history seems to have kept
at $ay new schoarship that coud $e transformative. Too often# new schoarship is
$racketed >iteray so in te(t$ooks? rather than integrated. @uch is added# $ut the $asic
narrative stays the same. That is why te(t$ooks get onger and onger# more and more
ungainy# and ess and ess reada$e.
A$out a decade ago# / $egan to think more seriousy and Auite differenty a$out the way
American history has $een written# to say nothing a$out the way / was teaching it. !hat
concerned me was not the then much1contested Auestion of the poitics of history# at east
not in the narrow sense of supporting or opposing this or that side in the so1caed cuture
wars. Nor was it a$out favoring i$era or conservative interpretations# for on the issue
that concerned me there was no difference. The pro$em was more fundamenta and
methodoogica: /t seemed to me that the defaut narrative imited my capacity to
understand the centra themes of American history. !hat were the true $oundaries of
America's nationa e(perienceB !hat history did the United &tates share with other
nationsB "ow woud the use of a wider conte(t change the core American narrativeB
6ecent changes in the schoo history curricuum highight the pro$em of teaching
American history as a sef1contained story. /n the interest of $etter preparing our youth
for citi4enship in a muticutura nation in a go$ai4ed word# most states now reAuire
schoos to offer word1history courses. That appears to $e an effective curricuar change#
$ut in practice the new curricuum su$verts the good intentions that prompted it. @ost
word1history courses do not incude American history. &omehow the word is everything
$ut us. America's interconnections and interdependencies $eyond its $orders are rarey
captured# and the revised curricuum reinforces the spit $etween America and the word
that contemporary citi4enship must overcome.
&trangey enough# many schoars who study foreign nations and regions ; area1studies
speciaists ; have shared and reinforced the approach that puts the United &tates and the
rest of the word in two different $o(es. American1studies and area1studies programs
deveoped at the same time in American universities# $ut unti very recenty they did not
acknowedge that each was an interacting part of the same go$a history.
/ want to make two nested arguments. The first is that a common go$a history
commenced when American history $egan# in the decades $efore and after 7C,,. The
second foows directy from the first: American history cannot $e adeAuatey understood
uness it is incorporated into that go$a conte(t. /t then $ecomes a different kind of
history# with more e(panatory power. /t reconnects history with geography. /t
incorporates causa infuences that work across space as we as those that unfod over
time. /t enriches our understanding of the historica making and remaking of the United
&tates. /t is# moreover# the ony way to map and appraise the changing position and
interdependencies that connect the United &tates today to the other provinces of the
word.
The American nation1$uiding pro2ect has $een unusuay successfu. But the history of
that success cannot and ought not $e used to sustain a caim of historica e(ceptionaism
or of categorica difference. !hatever the distinctive position of the United &tates today#
it remains nonetheess ony one go$a province interconnected with and interdependent
with every other one. The history of the United &tates is $ut one history among histories.
At the same time ; despite the camor of de$ate a$out muticuturaism and
go$ai4ation that has encouraged tak of the decine of the nation1state and the possi$iity
of a postnationa history ; / do not $eieve the nation is ikey to soon disappear. True#
nation1states have done terri$e damage to the human community# $ut they are aso the
ony enforcer avaia$e to protect human and citi4en rights. The nation must remain a
centra o$2ect of historica inAuiry so ong as we understand history to incude $oth the
anaysis of power in society and the carification of ethica responsi$iity within the
human community. @y purpose is not to dismiss nationa history $ut to propose a
different mode for it# one that $etter respects the empirica record and $etter serves us as
citi4ens of the nation and the word.
The story / want to te $egins around 7C,,# when oceanic seafaring for the first time
connected a the continents and created a common history of a peopes. The $eginning
of American history was part of the event that made go$a history. This perspective
redefines the 0New !ord.0 /t was not 0America#0 which did not e(ist. Nor was it the
European discovery of the !estern "emisphere. 6ather the ocean was discovered to $e a
connector of the continents and a common carrier of peopes# money# things# and
knowedge. The resut was a 0new word0 for the peopes of every continent# and the
American 0founding0 was em$edded in the resuting go$a economy. There were two
seAuentia dimensions to that $ase economy# and $oth depended upon go$a networks.
The god and siver that enriched the &panish empire and invited further e(poration and
settement was dependent upon an Asian market# hence the founding of @ania in 7C87.
North America depended upon the 0pantation compe(#0 which in turn e(poited
ensaved Africans. /ts cash crops ; midy addictive drugs and sugar ; reAuired oceanic
trade# since they acked nutritiona vaue and thus coud not contri$ute to a oca
su$sistence economy. .mergent capitaism and savery >and the connection $etween
them?# not a $and of Pigrims# mark the American $eginnings. This perspective aso
partiay dispaces the founding as a .uropean event. /n fact# $efore 79,, more Africans
than .uropeans made the Atantic transit.
!hie the movement of .uropeans to the !estern "emisphere vasty e(tended .uropean
civii4ation# the new go$a interactions produced a demographic catastrophe among the
indigenous peope of the Americas and in Africa# with devastating and ong1term
conseAuences in $oth paces. Thus# whie the American founding was not without the oft1
rehearsed aspirations for reigious freedom and to e(tend )hristianity# utopian ideas# and
the am$ition for economic opportunity# it was aso a story of death# savery# e(poitation#
and the construction of racia identities.
Taking a cue from a comment made $y Dames @adison at the )onstitutiona )onvention#
my framework e(tends the chronoogy and geography of the American 6evoution#
pacing it in the conte(t of the competition among the great 79th1century empires and#
especiay# the 0'reat !ar#0 the go$a confict $etween .ngand and %rance that asted
from 7-9: to 797C. The American 6evoution was an episode in that war# and %rench
resentment over Britain's overwheming victory in the &even Years' !ar that preceded it
$rought an a$soute monarchy into aiance with the repu$icans across the Atantic. =ike
the &even Years' !ar# the !ar for American /ndependence was a go$a war3 the %rench#
who had no specific North American o$2ectives save for weakening 'reat Britain# hoped
to regain trading posts in Africa and /ndia that they had ost in the previous war.
5eveopments outside the territoria United &tates were not ony decisive in the American
victory against 'reat Britain# $ut in the deveopment of the new nation. The emergence
of poitica parties# something not envisioned in the )onstitutiona )onvention# was
argey the product of American division over the post1789: confict $etween %rance and
Britain. The fa of the Bastie# which occurred four months after !ashington's
inauguration# and the "aitian 6evoution of 78:7 had profound conseAuences in shaping
poitica confict during the first four American presidencies. !hen the word war ended#
interna confict in the United &tates ended# economic deveopment acceerated# setters
moved west in rapidy increasing num$ers# and a new nationaism emerged# marking the
competion# finay# of the ong Auest for actua independence. The war that made
independence possi$e needed to end $efore independence $ecame rea.
Athough the )ivi !ar is the mora core of American history# it was nonetheess part of
the arger history of the invention of the modern nation1state. The immediate conte(t was
the .uropean revoutions of 79E9. =incon watched and admired the .uropean i$eras
who were forging a ink $etween nation and freedom. "e aso a$sor$ed their redefinition
of the meaning of nationa territory# demanding homogeneity within the territoria
$orders. That new understanding of nation transformed the poitica meaning of savery
and esta$ished the ogic of =incon's famous 0"ouse 5ivided0 speech. The house had
aways $een divided# and maintaining poitica sta$iity had $een a matter of negotiating
compromises. By the 79C,s# however# a nation had to $e a one or the other. / do not
think we can Auite recogni4e the passions of =incon# as we as of ordinary sodiers#
without taking account of the ideas of 79E9 and the nove understanding of the nation
then in circuation around the go$e. That framing aso provides an essentia conte(t for
understanding the road to reunion that achieved nationa soidarity at the cost of
removing American /ndians and denying African1Americans rights. The ink $etween
nationaism and freedom was $roken# as Americans em$raced a conservative
nationaism ; party sustained $y academic and 2udicia theorists who were infuenced
$y 'erman concepts of the state ; that weakened rights caims.
%or .uropean i$eras# incuding Dohn &tuart @i# 'iuseppe @a44ini# and 'iuseppe
'ari$adi# the American )ivi !ar was a centra episode in the history of i$era reform.
New understandings of nation# freedom# and nationa territory were payed out on every
continent. The crisis of union in the United &tates was part of a arger 0federative crisis0
in which nations# from Argentina to Dapan# from 'ermany to &iam# from the 6ussian and
<ttoman .mpires to the "aps$urg# were participants. A were recai$rating the reations
$etween nationa and oca authority. /n most cases# wars were part of the story. &o was
emancipation. !hie the United &tates emancipated four miion saves# another E,
miion serfs were freed in this era. Nation1making was a go$a phenomenon with
distinctive oca resuts.
@ost Americans hesitate to acknowedge the centraity of empire in their history# et
aone to see that the American empire was one among many. The imperia adventure of
79:9 was not# as is often argued# an accidenta and unthinking act3 empire had $een on
the nationa agenda for decades. There is a striking continuity in purpose and stye from
America's westward e(pansion to its overseas cooni4ation in 79:9. /f we prefer the
euphemism of 0westward e(pansion0 to o$scure the ink with 79:9# the participants had
no such need. /n 7:,,# Theodore 6oosevet# in a new preface to his The Winning of the
West, e(picity decared the Phiippine venture to $e a continuation of his story. !hen
the rapid miitary victory in the Phiippine war dissoved into a decade of insurgency#
many Americans# incuding 6oosevet# ooked toward commercia and cutura e(tensions
of American power rather than territoria ones. But that# too# was continuous with
American poicy from the time of Thomas Defferson. "e had fought our first foreign war
in the eastern @editerranean in order to protect American trade# and $y the midde of the
7:th century American farmers were camoring for poicies that woud make the word
their market. =ater industriaists and financiers woud demand the same. .mpires that
seek investment opportunities# natura resources# and cheap a$or a$road risk deeper
entangements than the simpe trading empire Defferson had envisioned. The interna
affairs of other nations $ecome vita3 property rights# security of oans# and much ese
$ecame the $usiness of the United &tates# and that has resuted in innumera$e
0interventions.0 /t has aso meant competition with other empires: 'ermany and Dapan
eary in the +,th century and the &oviet Union in the second haf.
=ooking at American progressive reform# socia i$eraism# and the caims of socia
citi4enship in the decades foowing 79:,# one cannot $ut recogni4e that such reform was
part of a go$a response to the e(traordinary e(pansion of industria capitaism and of
arge cities. A go$a menu of reform ideas was avaia$e to a. They were seectivey and
differenty adopted and adapted# nation $y nation3 the United &tates moved $eyond
aisse41faire i$eraism toward a socia i$eraism $y way of the teachings of 'erman
socia scientists# particuary historica economists. Dapan foowed the same mentors#
whie =atin Americans came to understand socia interdependence and the need for socia
insurance through the infuence of %rench positivism. The poitics of socia poicy varied.
/n 6ussia and =atin America# for e(ampe# the anded casses opposed industria
egisation to protect workers# whie in the United &tates and Dapan# it was $usiness that
opposed such egisation.
Nations kept their eyes on each other3 none wanted to ag too far $ehind. As 6oosevet
said in his 7:,9 annua address to )ongress: 0/t is humiiating that at .uropean
internationa congresses on accidents the United &tates shoud $e singed out as the most
$eated among the nations in respect to empoyer ia$iity egisation.0
!hat we ca the wefare state is actuay a socia1insurance state# one that recogni4es that
modern society $rings with it a variety of new risks ; industria accidents#
unempoyment# iness# od age. /n the age of aisse41faire# industria accidents were often
$amed on the victim. Toward the end of the century# the concept of risk changed the
mora meaning of the ia$iities inherent in ur$an and industria society. Nove theories
were deveoped first in %rance and Begium# $ut they soon spread. /nstead of $aming
worker or capitaist# the new understanding saw statistica pro$a$iities of in2ury#
unempoyment# and the ike. Those were conditions of modern society# and governments
turned to various forms of socia1security insurance. /n the United &tates# however# the
notion was sow to $e accepted# and the mora approach asted we into the +,th century.
Dane Addams# ike 6oosevet# was distressed that the United &tates was 0unaccounta$y
sow0 in responding to the chaenges of modern industria society. &he was right# yet it
may $e more usefu to say that the United &tates chose differenty than other nations.
Notions of individuaism# given pecuiar force $y the strength of ega formaism in
American aw# made Americans ess wiing to interfere with contracts or egitimate
coective $argaining. Yet Americans were Auick to protect women and the domestic
environment. @oreover# American unions had independence that euded unions granted
greater rights in @e(ico and Argentina# $ut that paid the price of co1optation. /n the +,th
century# the ate1forming American wefare state may have $enefited from its Ango1
American commitment to individua rights. Though there were worrisome ii$era and
proto1fascist movements in the 7:+,s ; the Fu Fu( Fan# the Geterans of %oreign !ars#
and# a itte ater# %ather )oughin ; the United &tates was one of very few industria
nations to survive the interwar years without succum$ing to fascist government.
<ne of my purposes is to argue against American e(ceptionaism# and in doing that /
emphasi4e a word of difference. The pro$em with the idea of American e(ceptionaism
is that it erases difference. There is ony the United &tates and a homogeni4ed 0other0 that
is the rest of the word. The argument here is that# whie there is a common history that
incudes us a# it pays out in many oca variations. "ence / am not saying that the
go$a history / invoke is a universa history# or that the American 6evoution is 2ust ike
other revoutions of its time. Nor do / say that the )ivi !ar was no different from the
emancipation of serfs in the 6ussian and "aps$urg .mpires or the unification of
'ermany and Argentina. Nor do / argue that the American empire was indistinguisha$e
from those of .ngand# %rance# or 'ermany3 or that progressivism in the United &tates
was ike progressivism in Dapan or )hie. But / am saying that there are famiy
resem$ances we have missed# and we have aso missed the sef1aware communication
a$out common chaenges that historica actors on every continent had with one another.
@ore important# the e(tension of conte(t ena$es us to see more ceary and deepy
e(acty what is uniAue a$out the nationa history of the United &tates. /ts ma2or events
and themes ook different3 their causes and conseAuences get redefined. The United
&tates has aways shared a history with others. To acknowedge that iteray makes us
more wordy# and it makes our history more accessi$e to foreign schoars and pu$ics. /t
makes us more open to interpretations of our history coming from historians and others
$eyond our $orders. /t wi# / hope# $etter educate us and our chidren to the kind of
cosmopoitanism that wi make us $etter citi4ens of $oth the nation and the word.
This kind of history is not entirey nove. /t is a recovery of history as it was envisioned
$y some of my predecessors a century ago. /n the 79:,s# when# as in the 7::,s#
Americans and others were intensey aware that new forms of communication and
transportation made the word smaer# historians# too# thought $eyond the nation in
framing their histories. "enry Adams's great History of the United States of America was
so framed# as was !...B. 5u Bois's "arvard dissertation on the suppression of the
Atantic save trade. !hie %rederick Dackson Turner is most remem$ered for his famous
address on 0The &ignificance of the %rontier in American "istory#0 we shoud aso reca
his rich essay on 0The &ignificance of "istory#0 presented to !isconsin teachers two
years earier# in 79:7. There he insisted that the history of every nation is connected to the
history of a other nations. A history of any oca pace# he said# cannot $e isoated from
the rest of the word.
Those historians were among the many inteectuas and men and women of good wi
who# over the ne(t three decades# sustained a hopefu internationaism and cosmopoitan
vaues# which resuted in the foundation of various internationa organi4ations devoted to
peace and upift. There was a great awareness of go$a connections# and go$a thinking
was Auite pervasive. %or historians# those understandings sustained a presumption that
nationa histories were part of a arger universa history. Yet their history was# in fact#
often parochia and race1$ased. They incuded in the domain of history ony those parts of
the word that were organi4ed into nation1states# thus eaving out Africa# most of Asia#
and what we now ca the @idde .ast.
&ti that first generation of professiona historians trained in the United &tates was more
wordy than the post1!ord !ar // group# who emphasi4ed American 0e(ceptionaism.0
That earier generation was typicay trained in .uropean as we as American history.
!ith their passing# American history $ecame more sef1encosed# a deveopment
acceerated $y the cod war. @uch was ost when a more wordy perspective atrophied in
the interwar and war years and was dismissed after !ord !ar //.
/t is important to recover it for the civic and historiographica reasons# and to renew it
with the historica Auestions of our time. /f we can $egin to think a$out American history
as a oca instance of a genera history# as one history among others# not ony wi
historica knowedge $e improved# $ut the cutura foundations of a needed
cosmopoitanism wi $e enhanced. !e do not want to reinforce a narrow and e(cusive
notion of citi4enship# $ut encourage and sustain a cosmopoitan citi4enry# at once proud
nationas and hum$e citi4ens of the word.
6o$ @ac5ouga
TransAmerica
/Hve en2oyed reading the conversation $etween .ric 6auchway# )ae$ @c5anie# and
now F) Dohnson on go$ai4ation and transnationa history. Perhaps / shoud say
transnationa American history# since a of them are coming at the topic from their
studies of the United &tates;as am /;$ut the e(tent to which transnationa history is
American history# and American history is transnationa history# is part of what is at issue
here. >/t may seem ike /'m confating transnationa history and go$ai4ation here# $ut
$ear with me. / know that Thomas Bender and others ike him are hardy prophets of
go$ai4ation in the mod of Thomas %riedman# $ut any honest answer to the Auestions
Iwhy transnationa American historyBJ and especiay Iwhy transnationa American
history nowBJ must surey invove the ' word.?
F)# )ae$# and .ricHs positions >/Hm 2ust going to ca them $y their first names $ecause
/Hve met F)# $een reading )ae$ for ages# and $ecause / saw a comment where Professor
6auchway said it was kosher to do so? seem compementary to me. )ae$ is an advocate
and >rara avis? an actua practitioner of transnationa history# $ut heHs righty skeptica of
any grand procamations a$out what go$ai4ation IprovesJ or IreAuires.J .ric has
written a $ook on 'ided Age go$ai4ation and the United &tates that / o$viousy have to
read: Blessed Among ations! America"s #lace in the World. "eHs arguing for the
continued reevance of poitica history now that transnationa history is the new $ack.
And F) wonders a$out the motivation of the transnationaists. /s it 2ust another way to
rationai4e the marginai4ation of poitica and dipomatic history;to Itake the state $ack
outJB
/n an earier post on this su$2ect# )ae$ cited Thomas BenderHs Rethin$ing American
History in a %lo&al Age. This week my American &tudies cass discussed an artice in
that coection# )hares Bright and @ichae 'eyerHs I!here in the !ord /s AmericaB
The "istory of the United &tates in the 'o$a Age.J !ith no greater Auaifications on
this su$2ect than that# pus 6aphHs peas for me to contri$ute to )iopatria again
sometime this decade# /H wade in with in a few thoughts.
/ donHt know if my coeagues here have read the Bright and 'eyer piece# $ut /Hd ove to
hear any reactions to its arguments. /t is interesting to me $ecause it offers a more
fundamenta rethinking of American history than simpy pointing out moments when the
United &tates was affected $y a wider word. /f the atter is a transnationa American
history is# then# as F) points out# good American historians have $een doing it for ages.
But Bright and 'eyer have a more am$itious program. The United &tates# they say# has
$een $oth a sovereign and a go$a nation since its start# one founded on universaist
principes and driven $y e(pansionist impuses that simutaneousy sought nationa
sovereignty yet chaenged its foundations. There has aways $een an Ioffshore America#J
they say# an imagined America that $eongs to the rest of the word# Ito $e watched# oged
at# and commented upon.J But the ast thirty years or so# they argue# have witnessed
something more. .ements of the U.&. state and especiay of American civi society have
I$roken freeJ of United &tates sovereignty and Igone go$a#J creating Ia trans1nation K
permanenty distinct from the territoria nation.J The United &tates and its citi4ens are
powerfu participants in this new transnationa America $ut neither contro it nor
constitute it in its entirety.
!eHve taked in my cass a$out American e(ceptionaism# and /Hd e(pected my studentsH
discussion of Bright and 'eyer woud center on that theme. <ne reason for Americanists
to em$race this transnationa turn is to hep put to rest the od e(ceptionaism;that sef1
satisfied confidence that the U.&.A. is uniAue among nations# e(empt from the ordinary
forces of history. BenderHs 'HE artice Lsu$scription reAuiredM makes this point e(picity.
But Bright and 'eyerHs version of transnationa American history points to a new kind of
American e(ceptionaism. They are not cheereaders or apoogists for American power#
$ut / $eieve they do advance the premise that the United &tates is different from other
nations# not 2ust in degree $ut in kind. You say itHs a go$a ageB !e# Bright and 'eyer
repy# America is the uniAuey go$a nation. This is not the same sef1effacing Ithere is
no AmericaJ post1nationaism caed for $y American &tudies schoars ike 5avid No$e
or Dohn )aros 6owe. I!hat coud $e more American#J Bright and 'eyer ask# Ithan a
move to reposition U.&.1American history in the path of word historyBJ
As it turned out# my )anadian students had no compaint with Bright and 'eyer on this
score. The United &tates is e(ceptiona# they a agreed. !hy pretend otherwiseB <ne
student gave a presentation which asserted# Igo$ai4ation N Americani4ation.J
IAmericani4ation of whatBJ / asked. I<f everything#J he shrugged.
!hat my students did $ak at# though# was Bright and 'eyerHs concept of the Itrans1
nation.J !hat is this transnationa America e(acty# they wanted to know. I)ertain
eements of American civi society have $een incorporated into a Otrans1nationH.J !hich
eementsB And what does it mean for them to I$reak freeJB The American trans1nation is
o$viousy reated to the sym$oic America Bright and 'eyer ca l"Ameri(ue;America
as imagined from a$road# the and of the 'oden @ountain and the 'oden Arches# the
'reat &atan and the )ity on a "i. But itHs more concrete than that. /t incudes American
management practices and institutiona forms. /t incudes the American doar and
American infuence in $odies ike the !ord Trade <rgani4ation. @ost of a# it incudes
American corporations# or mutinationa corporations and aiances that once caed
America home.
I!e# why didnHt they 2ust say thatBJ my students asked. /ndeed. Not to pick on Bright
and 'eyer# $ecause / think their artice is very smart. / was more convinced $y it than my
undergraduates were. But my students# in their skepticism# made an e(ceent point.
!hen impersona forces ike go$ai4ation and trans1nationaism get invoked# it is very
easy to ose sight of actua historica actors and actions. =ike a the passive voice
sentences in the papers /Hm currenty grading# these important1sounding nouns o$scure
the key ver$s. !ho is doing what to whomB !hoHs go$ai4ing whoB /Hm nothing $ut
sympathetic to the ca for more transnationa American history. /Hm a practitioner mysef
in a modest way. But / worry a$out work descri$ing ea$orate Inetworks of infuenceJ
that em$race everything and e(pain nothing. !hen we step $ack far enough to see the
whoe go$e# we ose an awfu ot of detai. And in a ot of the cas for transnationa
history# / detect a fu44iness a$out actors and actions# power and causation# that is
trou$ing whether or not it is intentiona.
"mm. This is getting ong. /H $reak here# and hopefuy return $efore too much time has
passed with some thoughts on something /Hm a itte more Auaified to speak on: the
specific significance of technoogy to this history.
Transnational political history
A coupe of months ago .ric 6auchway had a very interesting post# $oth at his own $og
and at P<TU&# on transnationa history. Unfortunatey# it appeared whie / was in the
thick of my 'reat Bog &ience# so /'ve ony 2ust had a chance in the ast coupe of days to
read the post with care.
6auchway's post cautions against the idea that transnationa history somehow suppants
the need for good poitica history. <n the contrary# the more interested historians $ecome
in the historica processes that have made go$ai4ation possi$e# the more imperative it
wi $ecome to focus on poitica history. 0Poitica history#0 he says# 0is a over the
essentia stuff of go$ai4ation.0 /n the first part of his post# 6auchway shows that he
means this iteray: if we take the 0stuff0 of go$ai4ation to $e the technoogies that
make ong1distance trave and communication possi$e# then we can't take for granted
how that 0stuff0 came to $e. And very often the technoogica innovations that heped
stitch the histories of distant nations together were ena$ed or inhi$ited $y nationa
poitics. Using transatantic ca$es as his primary e(ampe# 6auchway shows
convincingy that 0virtua reaity depends on rea reaity. /t runs over wires. Those wires
get spooed# strung# sunk# and kept safe from cutting owing to poitica decisions.0
6auchway points to immigration poicy as another e(ampe of why transnationa
historians cannot do without poitica history. As entranced as transnationa historians
may $e with the $order crossings and diasporic identities of migrant peopes# the
movement of those peope does not take pace in a poitica vacuum. /mmigration and the
poitics of immigration e(ist in an amost diaectica reationship: the 0disocation0 of
immigration sparks 0discontent03 that discontent is voiced poiticay in strugges over
immigration poicy3 that poicy often reacts against the forces of go$ai4ation3 and in the
end# poitics thus shapes the course of go$ai4ation. "istoriographicay# as much as
poiticay# the fact of immigration shows that the nation1state is not dead yet# and that
poitics in a nationa conte(t sti deserve the attention even of the most transnationa
historians.
Athough 6auchway uses some of my own definitions of transnationa history as a
spring$oard for his argument# / can't find much of anything in his post with which to
disagree. As / remarked in my earier post# transnationa historians are often afficted $y
the fact that there are more manifestoes for transnationa history than there are actua
e(ampes of it# which sometimes means that transnationa historians get stuck $eing
asked to defend manifestoes that are# $y their nature# often hyper$oic and e(cessivey
poemica. &ome manifestoes for transnationa history# for e(ampe# over1reach $y
making it sound as though the nation1state itsef is unimportant or o$soescent to propery
transnationa historians. And 6auchway is a$soutey right to react against that kind of
caim. No transnationa historian is worth his or her sat who does not concede that
nation1states must $e reckoned with $y historians of the modern word# go$ai4ation
notwithstanding. By the same token# / hod no $rief for transnationa historians who
woud argue that poitica history is $unkum.
/t may even $e miseading to speak of 0transnationa history0 $ecause that phrase seems
to denote a fied that stands in contradistinction to 0poitica history0 or 0socia history.0
/t's $etter to think of transnationa history as a posture or a methodoogica intervention
that urges us to do poitica history and socia history >and cutura history and inteectua
history and so on? in a certain way. &o a transnationa historian woud not disagree with
6auchway that poitics is a over the stuff of go$ai4ation. But they woud insist#
conversey# that the forces of go$ai4ation >or# ess anachronisticay# the transnationa
circuation of peope# goods# and ideas? are a over the stuff of poitics.
@ay$e it woud $e $est here to move out of the ream of manifesto and into the ream of
actua e(ampes of transnationa history. Take# for instance# 6auchway's point a$out
immigration poicy11that it shows why we can't understand 0transnationaism without
understanding the poitica processes that permit and promote it# that shape what kind of
go$ai4ation we get and how ong we get it for.0 Transnationa historians of immigration
woud not disagree with that# / think# $ut they woud want to add# in turn# that
immigration poicies and patterns of enforcement are not unaffected $y transnationaism
itsef. %or e(ampe# @adeine "su's $ook# )reaming of %old, )reaming of Home# shows
how Taishanese immigrants to )aifornia in the ate 7:th and eary +,th centuries used
transnationa kinship networks to effectivey imit the 0a$iity of nation1states to contro
migration.0 /f /'m remem$ering the $ook correcty# "su shows how# $y circuating coded
guide$ooks and maga4ines $ack to friends and famiy in )hina# immigrants found ways
to circumvent the seemingy impermea$e )hinese .(cusion =aws $y instructing other
woud1$e immigrants a$out how to answer successfuy the Auestions of immigration
officias.
"su is not saying that e(cusion aws and the poitica processes that made them are
irreevant to the history of )hinese immigration3 what she is saying is that the power of
those aws and poitica processes was to some e(tent attenuated $y transnationa
networks themseves. The esson here is not that transnationa historians can do without
poitica history# $ut that poitica historians aso cannot take for granted the effectiveness
of aws and poicies to contro and reguate transnationa forces ike immigration.
Another good e(ampe of that same esson can $e found in the most recent issue of the
*ournal of American History# which features an artice $y Thomas A. 'ugiemo on
@e(ican and @e(ican American activists in Te(as during !ord !ar //. >A persona or
institutiona su$scription to the "istory )ooperative is reAuired to view the artice.?
'ugiemo shows how some very 0high0 poitics11incuding the 'ood Neigh$or Poicy of
the United &tates that tried to create a united &outh American and North American front
against .uropean fascism11created opportunities on the ground in Te(as for @e(icans and
@e(ican Americans to o$$y for anti1discrimination aws and civi rights protections in
the state egisature. But he aso shows how those poitica strugges were shaped $y
transnationa networks of @e(icans and @e(ican Americans. &ome of the o$$ying
organi4ations that pressed for i$erai4ed aws in Te(as were $ased in @e(ico. And the
signa success of these activists occurred when @e(ican groups# working with @e(ican
Americans# pressured @e(ico to hod $ack migrant workers from Te(as cotton fieds if
Austin refusedd to heed the demands of activists for civi rights.
'ugiemo's piece is another good e(ampe of how transnationa poitica history might
$e done. At its $est# such transnationa history woud $e very sensitive to the power of
nation1states and the importance of poicy# $ut woud aso attune us to the ways that
nation1states and nationa poicies are themseves criss1crossed $y transnationa networks
of peope# goods# and ideas that often cruciay affect the poitics of nations.
6o$ert F) Dohnson
Bender on Transnationalism
Thomas Bender has a piece in this weekHs 'hronicle advocating Ithe end of American
history as we have known it#J to $e repaced $y an approach Ithat re2ects the territoria
space of the nation as a sufficient conte(t and argues for the transnationa nature of
nationa histories.J ThereHs a disconnect# though# $etween the specific e(ampes he cites
;a of which seem to me to $e e(ampes of how to teach a U.&. survey we;and his
$roader recommendations# which strike me as a departure that woud cose off arge
segments of the American past from inAuiry $y historians.
BenderHs essay provides a nicey done summary of how to teach U& history on the theory
that IAmerican history cannot $e adeAuatey understood uness it is incorporated into that
go$a conte(t.J The effects of the go$a Ango1%rench rivary and the "aitian revoution
inform the history of the post1)onstitution period. The )ivi !ar can $e e(amined in the
conte(t of the .uropean revoutions of 79E9 and the su$seAuent $urst in nation1state
formation# a IHfederative crisisH in which nations# from Argentina to Dapan# from 'ermany
to &iam# from the 6ussian and <ttoman .mpires to the "aps$urg# were participants. A
were recai$rating the reations $etween nationa and oca authority. /n most cases# wars
were part of the story. &o was emancipation. !hie the United &tates emancipated four
miion saves# another E, miion serfs were freed in this era. Nation1making was a
go$a phenomenon with distinctive oca resuts.J U& imperiaism# Bender recommends#
shoud $e studied as part of a go$a phenomenon in the ate 7:th and eary +,th
centuries. Progressivism;$oth in ideas and in poicies;was part of a go$a
phenomenon# a point we iustrated $y 5anie 6odgersH recent $ook on the su$2ect.
'liopatria readers might disagree with me here# $ut it seems to me that most professors
currenty teach American history through this type of ens. /Hd $e hard pressed to imagine
a discussion of U& poitics from 789:179,, that contained no mention of Britain# %rance#
and "aiti. 5itto one that anay4es the war in the Phiippines without discussing the
$roader scram$e for )hina and the imperia division of Africa. /n this respect# Bender
seems to $e arguing against a straw man. "e contends:
@ost Americans hesitate to acknowedge the centraity of empire in their history# et
aone to see that the American empire was one among many. The imperia adventure of
79:9 was not# as is often argued# an accidenta and unthinking act3 empire had $een on
the nationa agenda for decades. There is a striking continuity in purpose and stye from
America's westward e(pansion to its overseas cooni4ation in 79:9.
/ dou$t that this statement woud appy to any $ut a handfu of U& historians currenty on
coege facuties in the country. /f Americans as a whoe donHt accept this interpretation of
American imperiaism# itHs certainy not $ecause of the way in which U& history is $eing
taught. =ikewise# his approach# Bender reasons# wi make the academy Imore open to
interpretations of our history coming from historians and others $eyond our $orders.J
Again# / find it hard to imagine that there are many U& historians who are not open to
interpretations of U& history soey on the $asis of the authorHs nationaity. @oreover#
Bender argues that his approach wi educate students in Ithe kind of cosmopoitanism
that wi make us $etter citi4ens of $oth the nation and the word#J since this approach to
history wi make them Ihum$eJ citi4ens of the word. There are some oaded arguments
in this caim;ones that can $e easiy distorted $y professors intending to teach their
poitica views rather than history.
"aving raised;and dismissed;a num$er of straw men# what is the mode of this new
transnationa history Bender desiresB I/n the past few years# some of the most innovative
and e(citing schoarship in American history has $een framed in ways that do not
necessariy tie it to the nation1state ; work on gender# migrations# diasporas# cass# race#
ethnicity# and other areas of socia history.J "mm. /n other words# ItransnationaJ history
represents one way to rationai4e the academyHs having driven poitica# dipomatic#
miitary# and constitutiona history out of the discipine. "ow reassuring.
@y chief o$2ection to BenderHs anaytic framework comes in its impicit suggestion that
Auestions that donHt fit into this new transnationa conception arenHt worthy of
e(poration. "is essay repeatedy# and correcty# denounces a parochia approach to the
study of the United &tates. But a ItransnationaJ approach is aso imiting. Take# for
instance# the study of congressiona history. Anay4ing the topic through a redefined
transnationa ens to the American past woud aow historians to e(pore ony a siver of
the Auestions open to us. This concern woud appy to a variety of other topics in
poitica# dipomatic# miitary# and constitutiona history.
/f Bender can incorporate a rather than 2ust some su$1discipines of American history
into his framework# it might $e easier to imagine his Ire1imaginingJ of the past.