Global History, Imperial History and Connected Histories of Empire

TLDR

Global history has become a dominant trend, with Imperial historians playing a key role, making it increasingly difficult to separate the two fields. The authors call for a more explicit reflection on methodological differences between Global and Imperial history, proposing connected histories of empire that bridge the gap between purely imperial and purely global narratives. They propose a connected‑histories approach that integrates comparative and spatial methods from both Global and Imperial historians to uncover links across imperial borders.

Abstract

The turn towards Global history shows no sign of abating. It seems that across the discipline, historians are becoming increasingly interested in understanding the past on a planetary scale. Prominent Imperial historians, in particular, have been among the most fervent advocates of Global history. So close are the concerns of some Imperial history—particularly British Imperial history—to those of Global history, that it is getting harder to disentangle the two. Despite this we argue that, whilst both fields are overlapping and heterogeneous, historians should reflect more explicitly on the methodological differences that exist between them. In the process we point out some lessons that Global historians might learn from Imperial historians, and viceversa. We argue for “connected histories of empire” that seek to uncover links that operated across the formal borders of imperial formations and that deploy novel spatial frameworks. Such an approach would draw on the diverse methodologies developed by Imperial and Global historians who seek to write both “comparative” and “connected” histories. We point the way towards histories that are more than imperial, but less than global.