From 11-14 April 2011, the Junior Research Groups A9 "Cultural Transfer" and B9 "Information Flows" will host a spring school at the German Historical Institute London. The school with the topic “Global History: Connected Histories or a History of Connections?” has been organised jointly by the JRGs and researchers from the University of Leipzig (Graduate School “Critical Junctures of Globalization”, Research Academy, Global and European Studies Institute, Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas) and the German Historical Institute London. The school takes place in the days immediately before the Third European Congress on World and Global History which will be hosted by the London School of Economics and Political Science from 14-17 April 2011. It provides an ideal introduction to the main congress theme of connections and comparisons.

In recent years, Global History has firmly established itself as a new and highly productive field of historical research. An allegedly ephemeral historiographical fashion has proved to be a well-grounded and well-respected research perspective. And yet the question of what Global History actually is and what its practitioners ought to research and teach is still hotly debated. The often confusing multitude of differing opinions on this question can at times be hard to come to terms with – especially for researchers at the start of their careers. The spring school Global History: Connected Histories or a History of Connections? will focus on two distinct approaches to Global History that particularly illustrate the differing presuppositions and intended insights informing research in the field. It is one of the distinct traits of Global History not to accept the presupposition of self-contained, autonomous cultures, societies or nations as principal units of investigation. Hence, terms and concepts such as connections, connecting or connectedness are close to the core of almost every historical study in the field. And still the concept of connections can be operationalised in very different ways reflecting the different possible approaches to the purpose of Global History.

The first approach that we have chosen to call connected histories builds on the presupposition of globality, of global entanglements, that provide the context for the historical processes under scrutiny. No matter if one, two or more cultures or societies are looked at, they must always be treated and assessed as connected and entangled with others. But as important as they may be, the connections themselves merely form the background, the context of the analysis, while the people, things and entities connected stand in the focus of research. In this way, statehood or state building – to name but one example – are examined as embedded in global spaces of communication and interaction rather than as principally endogenous and autonomous processes.
The history of connections-approach, on the other hand, primarily looks at the emergence and functioning of globality by way of global connections. Here, the connections themselves constitute the object of research, while that which has been connected mainly provides the research context. This research approach often leaves traditional understandings of space behind and focuses on the rationale and the local impact of the emerging global sphere. The study of the emergence of a global telegraph network and its transformative impact on global spaces of communication and interaction can serve as an illustrative example here.

The history of connections-approach focuses on distinct topics and subjects that have had a formative impact on our global(ised) world and whose analysis helps to explain and understand current problems of (and in) globalisation. The connected histories-approach allows the researcher to throw new light on established topics that have previously been viewed exclusively in the context of the nation state or other self-contained entities and to carry a global and exchange-oriented perspective into this field.

Of course, none of the two approaches is better, faster, more useful or, indeed, “more Global History” than the other. Rather they reflect the research questions and desired insights of the historian. The spring school seeks to highlight both the differences and the similarities between the two approaches and also aims at exemplifying the connection between the historian’s questions and the chosen perspective on Global History. It wants to provide PhD students in the field of Global History with an opportunity to study these concepts. This will encompass in-depth discussion with renowned experts in the field as well as the presentation and discussion of the participants’ own research projects in the light of the spring school’s principal questions.