From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Transnationalism vs. internationalism[edit]

The Article seems to be confusing what internationalism is. As it's been historically used to express a sense of no-nations, and directly opposed to nationalism (as a form of anti-nationalism)[1]. I'd like to get some input, but if not I will rewrite the article in June. It feels like we are wrestling with the English language here too, with the lines of "internationalism" being blurred over years of use.--Taboo Tongue (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference between transnationalism and internationalism needs to be defined. whereas international processes occur back and forth between nation states. A transnational process is something that functionally occurs at the same time in different locations in different nation states- so not necessarily back and forth. Wikipedia is a perfect example of the transnational- in that it involves thousands of people participating together in something at the exact same time- it is functionally integrated across borders! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Older Talk[edit]

I have done a draft merge from Transnationalism into Transnational. If you don't like it, feel free to revert. I chose to merge into Transnational because there are more articles linking into Transnational. If you disagree, feel free to merge it the other way and redirect this page. --Jonathan O'Donnell 06:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested this article should be merged with Transnational. I think that's a good idea. Revontuli 12 March, 2006

  • Created the article, just wrote a short introduction. I hope for this to become the weekly collaboration. If not I hope people help to contribute to this article.--EatAlbertaBeef 22:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is this idea different than globalization? Does globalization focus more on economics (who is trading with whom, how much money is being made here or there,) and politics (how will these people live together, what are the powers involved here, how are decisions being made,) whereas transnationalism focuses more on cultural artifacts (spread and awareness of drawing styles, movie styles, writing styles,) ideas of what is true (science, technology,) ..? Is this a sort-of good understanding? LionKimbro

  • Globalization is a phenomena, transnationalism is a philosophy and a point of view. Globalization can be viewed from a transnationalist perspective, but they're not limited to each other. Revontuli 12 March, 2006

How does trans-nationalism affect feminism? I read that it did, on another page. My question is: how?

It's my hope that by asking the questions I have, perhaps you can write a better, clearer, more plainly spoken article that answers them. Not understanding it, though, I don't think I can contribute much more than questions here. LionKimbro

  • Feminism? I'm not sure. Transnationalism is connected to other larger liberal, humanist issues, of which feminism is one, but whether there are direct connotations, I can't say. On a purely theoretical level, I suppose anti-feminist transnationalism might be possible, as well. Revontuli 12 March, 2006

Merge with transnational[edit]

I think its not a bad idea to merge to create a single main article that describes transnationalism.

I also think some how, it needs to mention the comparison between multi-national corporations and transnational corporations in a sub heading topic.

Visik 03:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Feminism more or less fits with transnationalism, in that there are many transnational feminists who would like to have (of course) world wide laws passed in reference to women's rights.

And I've got to ask, why is this article so stilted? Yes, I know wikipedia is supposed to be free of bias (though that is of course impossible) but it also generally expresses both sides of an issue. Transnationalism, or at least transnational progressivism, is a hotly contested issue considered by some to be salvation and by others to be an attempt by said party to establish itself as a world wide kleptocracy. If one were to read the article alone, however, one would be left with the impression that it is nothing but a bed of roses. There are a very many legitimate arguments to the contrary. The corruption of the UN and ICC, for instance. Even if one did not accept such bodies as being considered nearly holy by tranzis as evidence that they are indeed transnational organizations, the fact remains that once an organization goes beyond international cooperation to actions which impinge upon the sovereignty of nation states (attempting to try their soldiers against the nation's will, in the case of the icc, or any number of resolutions made by the UN which they attempt to force upon other states) then it becomes by definition transnational.

If one just read this article, however, one would leave with the impression that transnationalism is nothing but cooperation on an international level. It is not. It is any interaction carried out on an international scale which is dictated by a governing body outside of that of any of the participating nation-states. So, yeah, some transnational organizations such as green peace and others mentioned in the articles are purely "aid" related, have no teeth in essence. However, that does not change the fact that they are still aligned with other tranzi organization that are nowhere near as toothless and see the destruction of individual nation-state sovereignty as their one main unifying goal.

Now, I know I'm not unbiased. I think my opinion of tranziism is pretty clear, even though I have refrained from going into any discussion of what I consider to be their deplorable tactics. That's why I'm not amending the article. But to the person who posted it originally, could we at least see SOME light given to the other side of the lines so that people who read it aren't misled into thinking that tranziism is nothing more than some new international hippie movement whose sole goal is peace and love? Or at least enough competing information so that they might QUESTION that notion and look elsewhere for more detailed information? ReeyferMadness (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a good place to look for the other side of the argument--as asked for here--is the page for anti-globalization. These terms, transnationalism and globalization are used,not unproblematically, interchangeably; i think that instead of dramatically rewriting this article, it maybe more advantageous to link it to the other page. (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)travis C. UT AUSTIN

Anyone Out There?[edit]

I realize that the last comment on this talk page is from about a year ago, but I'm currently working on giving the "Transnational Citizenship" page a massive overhaul. I find it important to distinguish between what it means to be considered a transnational citizen and what transnationalism means. In the same vein, in response to the below comments on the quality of this particular article, I also find it to be severely flawed. For instance, while globalization is a driving force behind the advent of transnationalism, the two terms are certainly not synonymous. But I digress. Back to the transnational citizenship page. The page will use various sources to craft a comprehensive understanding of how shifts in the global scene and the international workforce has led to increasingly transient identities in the political, social, and cultural realms. Anyways, if any of you are out there anywhere, make sure to check out the new page soon, it should be up and running by this weekend! Valerie Elise (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

→I agree with your assessment of the page. It's badly flawed, mixes concepts, makes wrong definitions, starting with the opening line: "Transnationalism is a social movement..." Well, no. It's more of a social process. I suspect what transnationalism IS depends on who you ask, thus in order to do this page any justice we'll have to have a number of editors of different backgrounds (economics, sociology, development studies). No small task, but I'll be around to help with bits and pieces. --Whoosit (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)