In their essay, Levitt and Khagram attempt to give the reader a general perspective of how the field of Transnational Studies is organized. They begin by explaining the importance of analyzing social dynamics as cross-cultural, cross-borders phenomena (2007: 2) and then go on to describe the several different approaches pursued by the scholars within Transnationalism. For each one of these approaches, or foundational pillars, the authors give examples to better illustrate their specificities.

Levitt and Khagram begin the essay with the following sentence: “Social life crosses, transcends and sometimes transforms borders and boundaries in many different ways” (2007: 1). Indeed, not just social, but also political, economic and religious dynamics, to name a few, have been increasingly breaking physical boundaries, reaching far outside national spheres of influence and involving seemingly disparate groups and identities. The authors mention the events of 9/11 as a complex example of this phenomenon, as it simultaneously involved transnationally-acting institutions and reasserted the prevalence of the nation-state and nationalist discourses (2007: 1). Similarly, Hesford points out the danger of what she calls a reification of “nationalist fantasies of self-reliance and unifying notions of citizenship” that lead to cultural homogeneity and monolingualism (2006: 789). Transnationalism seems to reject this sort of national supremacy and attempts to open up a dialog between and across nations.

However, in order to fully understand Transnationalism, I believe it is important to know what exactly “transnational” means, as opposed to “international,” “supranational,” or even “multinational.” For, whereas the latter concepts all involve nations/countries as physical spaces with borders that separate them from each other, “transnational” points towards contact between and across the physical boundaries, thus focusing on the nation/nation-state not as the preferred paradigm of social and political organization, but as a construct which changes with these trans-border relationships (Levitt & Khagram 2007: 7). It is important to note that Transnationalism goes beyond matters of nationality and geographical location, to study the development and effects of non-territorial or trans-territorial subjects such as religion, economy, justice and human rights (Levitt & Khagram 2007: 5). The world appears, then, in a transnational perspective, as an intricate tapestry, where the national, historical, religious, political, economic, cultural, intersect and intertwine, the boundaries merging and eventually disappearing (Levitt & Khagram 2007: 8). Another important distinction, made clear by the authors, is that between Transnationalism and Globalization, the latter implying homogenization and constraint to move beyond the predominant systems of social organization, while the former appears to question those constraints and allow for the permanence of local individuality (2007: 6).

Levitt and Khagram then provide a description of the several branches of Transnationalism, explaining how each contributes to the whole. Interestingly, much like its study subject, Transnationalism seems like an interweaving of different paths – Empirical, Methodological, Theoretical, Philosophical and Public – that merge into one complete and complex field of research, that joins spatiotemporal analysis, procedural strategies, theoretical approaches, ontological and epistemological discussions, and practical solutions for dealing with current situations. Transnationalism aims, then, at developing viable policies for real-world use, thus emphasizing the need for agency and action (2007: 18-20).

One of the aspects that interested me the most in this essay was the way Transnationalism appears to question, challenge and reshape concepts such as citizenship and national identity (2007: 7), often taken for granted, as the authors say. They are indeed organic constructs that change in relation to the inter/transnational conjuncture, but also as a reaction to inner, that is national, transformations. Transnationalism seems to stress the importance of such a change, calling into question the validity of nation-state systems as organizational structures and, I would venture to add, as identity markers, for they eventually become, to use Hesford’s expression, “imagined geographies,” mental borders that may not match the physical ones (Hesford 2006: 790).  As a consequence, power dynamics become more fluid, as they are no longer limited to the national borders (Levitt & Khagram 2007: 15), and spatiality can no longer be seen as an essential trait of one’s sense of self, rather as the place where different identities converse (Hesford 2006: 790). On the other hand, one should also consider the implications of such a power shift, as it may determine the loss of the nations’ authority and possibly undermine their sense of national selves, as the “personalized life-spaces” lose ground to the “broader social processes” (Levitt & Khagram 2007: 6-7). The European Union is an example of a transnational institution that has gradually been gaining power over the countries it encompasses, holding exclusive competence on affairs such as commercial policy, customs union and international agreements.[1] How can nations respond to this new authority effectively? How can they maintain their own sense of authority and identity in relation to this transnational institution?

Levitt and Khagram make a very good argument for Transnational Studies. Indeed, there seems to be little doubt that we are living in a transnational world, where national borders appear to collapse under the weight of ever expanding and globally reaching policies and strategies. Therefore, there needs to be a careful study of social and political dynamics and of the way they influence national and international policies. However, we should keep in mind the implications that this transnational world may have on the nations as constitutive of collective and individual identities. Saskia Sassen mentions that nation-states become transformed by transnational relationships (Levitt & Khagram 2007: 15). But how much of that transformation is too much transformation? And under what circumstances? Levitt and Khagram do not seem to provide an answer for these questions. Although they defend Transnationalism as an all-encompassing field of research, it seems that transnational dynamics win over the national element in their essay. It seems to me that there is the need for what Hesford calls “intertextuality of local and global cultures” (2006: 792), a way to connect the national and the transnational in an organic exchange that does not impose one on the other. The question is: could it be done?