must be a priority if we are to write truly connected histories of empire. Conclusions Comparative methods and a focus on connections have been marked features of Imperial history and Global history alike. In writing connected histories of empire, we can borrow some of the new, invigorating geographical frameworks that have been suggested by Global historians. We can also follow the lead provided by Imperial historians and explore how comparisons were made by contemporary historical actors. The use of and the development of a sensitivity to the “encompassing comparison”, of as both Stoler and Pomeranz have suggested, be seen “politics comparison” should, as integral to the writing of connected history. Connected histories of empire might also be informed by the rich Imperial historiography that has revealed the webs, networks, systems and flows that linked up different sites of colonization. However, as the articles in this special issue suggest, these networks should not be examined within an analytical frame that is restricted to a single empire. Different empires were connected to one another, materially as well as through the of These connections “politics comparison”. were thus more than imperial. But they were also less than global, in two senses. Firstly, these interconnections seldom spanned the entire globe. As research on borderlands has illustrated, the processes of imperial expansion and the production of denser webs of interconnection in fact operated to marginalise and exclude some parts of the world. Indeed, to describe these connections as global is to miss the simultaneous and linked process by which places previously networked could become disconnected. Secondly, long-distant interconnections were seldom subjectively experienced as global. Individuals linked by these networks did not self-consciously conceive of themselves as operating globally. Usually, historical actors regarded themselves as working within the frameworks of empires and nations, even as they combined and switched between local, national and imperial (and ethnic, linguistic and religious) identities as needs might dictate at any given moment. Connected histories of empires should push us beyond traditional imperial boundaries, but not necessarily to a geographical scale encompassing the entire planet. The essays in this collection demonstrate the value and potential of studies that deploy these comparative methods and move us towards a truly connected history of empire. Alex Middleton, Andrew Priest and contributions all engage Satoshi Mizutani’s
must be a priority if we are to write truly connected histories of empire. Conclusions Comparative methods and a focus on connections have been marked features of Imperial history and Global history alike. In writing connected histories of empire, we can borrow some of the new, invigorating geographical frameworks that have been suggested by Global historians. We can also follow the lead provided by Imperial historians and explore how comparisons were made by contemporary historical actors. The use of “encompassing comparison”, and the development of a sensitivity to the “politics of comparison” should, as both Stoler and Pomeranz have suggested, be seen as integral to the writing of connected history. Connected histories of empire might also be informed by the rich Imperial historiography that has revealed the webs, networks, systems and flows that linked up different sites of colonization. However, as the articles in this special issue suggest, these networks should not be examined within an analytical frame that is restricted to a single empire. Different empires were connected to one another, materially as well as through the “politics of comparison”. These connections were thus more than imperial. But they were also less than global, in two senses. Firstly, these interconnections seldom spanned the entire globe. As research on borderlands has illustrated, the processes of imperial expansion and the production of denser webs of interconnection in fact operated to marginalise and exclude some parts of the world. Indeed, to describe these connections as global is to miss the simultaneous and linked process by which places previously networked could become disconnected. Secondly, long-distant interconnections were seldom subjectively experienced as global. Individuals linked by these networks did not self-consciously conceive of themselves as operating globally. Usually, historical actors regarded themselves as working within the frameworks of empires and nations, even as they combined and switched between local, national and imperial (and ethnic, linguistic and religious) identities as needs might dictate at any given moment. Connected histories of empires should push us beyond traditional imperial boundaries, but not necessarily to a geographical scale encompassing the entire planet. The essays in this collection demonstrate the value and potential of studies that deploy these comparative methods and move us towards a truly connected history of empire. Alex Middleton, Andrew Priest and Satoshi Mizutani’s contributions all engage
Potter_Saha_Connected_Histories_FINAL.docx