Call for papers - from Emails

[MQ]

Below, I have collected our thoughts about the call for papers from
the emails we have sent over the summer. Feel free to add or remove
anything.

- Magnus

From Joonas:

Dear all,
I am glad that we have a title for the conference. I just started to
think how this demarcation should be understood. Does it refer to
methodology or philosohphy? Finally I took it as a methodological
problem.
In order to start, I put some thoughts down about transfer and
demarcations. Please feel free to comment and criticize.

Despite the fact that transfer studies have offered fresh viewpoints
on often so place-centered history, there are problems in the studies
of transfer too. Since the diffusion of cultural goods and ideas is a
very complex process, the biggest problems of the transfer approach
are related to the demarcation of the transfer. While one should not
underestimate the amount of different factors which affect on the
process of the transfer, one should also be able to define the frames
of transfer.


In Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the challenge of
reflexivity (2006) Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann have
pointed out that although transfer approach can offer reasonable
models for the study of the diffusion of the cultural goods and ideas,
it can also creates its blind spots: Firstly, too often the transfer
is considered as an action of two poles, which have always the points
of departure and arrival. In fact, the transfer is a more complex
process, in which factors of every kind affect on the results of the
transfer. Secondly, the transformation of the object itself during the
transfer is taken too rarely into account. Since transferred objects
tend to change during the diffusion, also the transformation of the
object should be taken into consideration. [1]


Thus, the transfer of cultural goods and ideas should be considered as
a complex process with numerous intersecting and varying factors.
This, however, creates a major methodological problem: how to
demarcate transfer. Since there are endless amount of factors, which
affect on the process of transfer, historians cannot take all of them
into account, but they need to define the scales of their analysis.
According to Histoire Croisée approach, spatial and temporal units of
analysis depend on the adopted point of view and the object of the
study. The relevant scales of the analysis should be those that are
constructed or brought into play in the very situations under study.
But is this easier said than done? How can we know, which are the
scales that matters?



From Hanne:

Dear all,

I have now written something for our call for papers. Since Joonas had
written so much on demarcations, I concentrated on other stuff. Have
for example made some suggestions of what sort of papers we want
(might have overdone it a bit with the questions here). Have a look.
Of course, there is a lot of work left:

- I think we need some kind of fiery start; a quote from a politician
or some legendary writer of sorts.

- After reading a bit about transfer, I'm still a bit confused about
what it actually is; an approach, a method? It might be because it's
difficult to find a theoretical article actually advocating transfer
in whatever form. Apparently there are plenty of problems with
transfer, but since we are dedicating a conference to the topic we
should say something positive about it as well. A reoccurring phrase
is "transfer studies" indicating that it is more of an approach than a
method, while I understand histoire croisée and comparisons as more of
a method. But I might have misunderstood, most articles does not deal
with this.

- I also think that it is point not to narrow the call for papers to
only deal with the methodological issues of transfer and demarcation,
but open up for empirical studies. Otherwise we might not get enough
participants.

CALL FOR PAPERS:
The last 20 years has seen an outpouring of literature challenging the
nation-state as the obvious unit of historical analysis. A wide
variety of approaches, perspectives and concepts are offered in its
place, among them the concept of transfer. Along with transnational
and comparative studies, transfer studies posits a challenge to the
methodological nationalism that dominated the study of history for so
long. It offers an alternative to a history revolving around the
nation-state, challenging the inherent essentialism nation-state-
oriented academia has been plagued with. Instead, transfer studies
stress connections, interactions and circulation across borders, often
looking at the actors involved in such processes. History is perceived
as a number of shared experiences changing, adapting and transforming,
over time and space.

But transfer studies is not unproblematic. The approach has been
criticized for focusing on successful transfers, neglecting situations
where transfer failed as well as overlooking the resistance such
movements encountered. It has also been claimed that the approach,
despite its origin as a critique of the self-evident use the nation as
a unit of historical analysis, might actually reinforce this unit by
postulating that the points of reference of the transfer, the
beginning and the end, are fixed. (Here we might have some
demarcation-stuff).

Is the concept of transfer useful and usable for historians? Has
transfer studies together with other historical trends such histoire
croisée, and transnational and global history, succeeded in
challenging long-lived historical master narratives? Is process,
experience and transformation a viable, and useable, alternative to
the traditional stories of modernization, nation-building and
Occidentalism? Is the nation state no longer the self -evident unit of
study and comparison?

We want to know your experiences with the concept; As a perspective,
inspiration or dead-end. Have you used it, and if so, how and when? If
not, why? The approach is more common among historians interested in
culture, economy and technology than among social and political
historians. Does this imply that the approach is more useful to some
sub-categories of the discipline than others?

We welcome both more theoretical papers discussing methodological
issues connected with transfer and demarcations as well as empirical
ones.


From Magnus:

Demarcation

ON DEMARCATION
Demarcation can be seen as a concept closely connected to the concept
of transfer. One cannot talk of transfer without having concepts of
demarcation, whether these are framed in spatial, social or cultural
terms. In other words: no transfer without demarcation. The concept of
demarcation raises the question of ‘why the transfer is perceived as a
transfer at all?’ Thus demarcation is a central concept when it comes
to investigating the obstacles of transfer whether spatial, social or
cultural. But demarcation is also a key concept when it comes to
understanding the perceived foreignness of a given transfer and the
different positions adopted, ranging from different attempts of
appropriation to actively resisting and rejecting the transfer.