ABSTRACT
This chapter deserves a historiographical discussion on transnational history and its impact in recent historiography. Not being a specific subject or corpus of knowledge, transnational history does not involve a historical theory or research method. Indeed it is essentially ‘an angle, a perspective’. In recent decades, the transnational turn has been a important development in historiography.
The spread of public health and social medicine during the first half of the twentieth century involved phenomena that cannot be fully appreciated nor understood from a purely national perspective. Nevertheless, such phenomena have long been perceived as national. Sanitary campaigns, the fight against epidemics and social diseases, research programmes, vaccination campaigns, biological and pharmaceutical standards, construction of healthcare institutions, public health regulations, food quality control, and many other aspects related to health, disease, and medical practices were not exclusively national initiatives. Their understanding requires a transnational approach to discover the real participants. Nevertheless, a transnational approach has not been frequently adopted in the history of science, medicine, or technology.
This chapter discusses the process of scientific knowledge circulation. Since Basalla’s diffusionist model, the globalisation of modern science has been a controversial issue. Edward Shils, Joseph Ben-David, E. Said, R. MacLeod, P. Palladino, M. Worboys, and K. Raj widely criticise the centre-periphery model. A special mention should be made of the concept of ‘knowledge in transit’ as proposed by J. Secord (2004). The last part of the chapter deals with the role of providence in the making of citizenship.
