Leiden has its own tradition in the field of political and national history. More than at other Dutch universities, research is conducted into the national, often political history of individual countries in Europe and beyond. Such a focus on national history is no longer common practice within the field. However, if this focus is problematised, it still remains a fruitful basis for a study of the past. The construction of national identities is not least a question of political action in the broadest sense of the word, and it therefore makes sense to study these matters in their relation to one another. This step seems all the more obvious if, in thinking of politics, we think primarily of political culture: on the one hand, the cultural aspects of the political realm itself, and on the other hand the broad social-cultural and cultural-intellectual embedding of politics. In both respects, political culture has to a large extent developed in national contexts and, conversely, ‘national identity’ is often simply another word for traditions in the field of political culture. Problematising ideas concerning national identity is also closely related to problematising the accepted assumptions about established politics.

Leiden more than any other university offers an ideal environment for the study of this complex, due to the presence among its historians of so many country specialists and specialists in the history of the European Union. The parallel presence of these specialisations does not automatically lead to collaboration. Among historians, it has long been a habit to concentrate on one country and to study this country in its unique characteristics (The German Sonderweg, Great-Britain versus the Continent, l’exception française, The Netherlands as an exception to the general human pattern, American exceptionalism, etc.), while the study of the history of Europe and European unification was effected in a separate area of research. In recent decades, an increasing amount of criticism has been voiced concerning the nationally-oriented historical tradition, and calls have been made for more comparative research. In practice, however, it proves to be far from easy for a historian (as opposed to, for instance, a sociologist) to study history from a comparative perspective.

Comparative history begins with placing a number of national cases side by side, but it is, of course, far more than that. Expertise in the field of national history will probably reach its full potential if, rather than concentrating on separate juxtaposed national cases, historians focus instead on the connections between them. To this end, the German and French history of ideas tradition has developed the concept of ‘culture transfer’, i.e. the adoption of foreign examples and the inspiration which they engender. This concept can easily be transferred to the political domain, for instance with regard to social movement, parties and parliaments, and the use of symbols and material objects. In the attempt to escape the pressure of the national template in research (whereby national phenomena are automatically understood and explained in terms of national developments), the concept of political transfer is an important heuristic tool. In addition, Europe and international or supra-national organisations, such as those involved in post-War European unification, can then be studied as platforms of political transfer.