The Diplomatic History Bandwagon: A State of the Field

Abstract

An era of innovation among historians of American foreign relations is upon us. Gone are the days when, in 1980, Charles S. Maier could claim that social and cultural history had marginalized the state, implicitly relegating the "languishing" field of diplomatic history to the status of "stepchild" to serious historical scholarship. 1 Grievances against departments that supposedly refuse to hire diplomatic historians or against journals that seemingly shut us out are increasingly rare. The relationship of the field to the profession is no longer characterized by the tired, anecdotal saw of exclusion. Instead, historians of U.S. foreign relations are, in many ways, an advance guard driving the bandwagon of internationalization, riding along with those who study mentalités and culture. And that relationship has been reciprocal: while the recent story of U.S. diplomatic history rests on its merger with the majority, the mainstream has also reached out to us.This essay looks at how, over the past two decades, the study of U.S. foreign relations has stood at the intersection of the domestic and international, of theory and empiricism, of security/politics and the cultural turn. Diplomatic history is a clearinghouse of sorts for work on America in the world, and I seek to illustrate how a sample of diplomatic historians approach their field in ways both new and consistent with trends in the profession at large. 2 This article will consider three (not mutually exclusive) areas in which reform has enlivened the field: traditional realism's engagement with ideology (mentalités), the embrace of international history, and the study of culture and identity. These reforms have redefined the field in ways that confirm the movement of diplomatic history into the mainstream of the historical profession's interests, and vice versa.Thomas W. Zeiler is professor of history at the University of Colorado.I appreciate the suggestions for improvement by

The Scientific World Faced with the Apocalypse of Its Own Creation: A Comparison ofDr. StrangeloveandNine Days of One Year

“…Afterwards, scholars came to recognize that the conflict had involved whole populations, and so they expanded the scope of their work. In particular, its cultural and ideological aspect began to attract academic interest (Zeiler), and, notably, the role of cinema became the object of more scholarly attention (Sorlin; Shaw, Hollywood's ; Roth‐Ey). After all, no less a figure than Lenin had argued that “of all arts, cinema for us is the most important” (Beumers 38).…”

Bringing the Transnational In: Writing Human Rights into the International History of the Cold War

“…I want to assure the skeptics that adopting transnational approaches does not erode diplomatic historians' traditional concerns about power. 44 Indeed, the ways in which it makes the history of ideas more accessible suggests such methods might enable scholars to look more closely at soft power or other factors shaping international relations. 45 Transnational approaches are particularly essential to the aspects of the Cold War most interesting to me: human rights activism and United States human rights policy.…”

Comment écrire l'histoire des relations internationales aujourd'hui ? Quelques réflexions à partir de l'Empire britannique

“…Bien sûr, il est possible de faire valoir que ces nouveaux travaux sont le résultat d'un effet de mode, en un temps où il est question de crise de l'État-nation, de globalisation, d'Empire américain, de désoccidentalisation du monde, etc., et que la structuration professionnelle du champ académique anglo-saxon encourage souvent à transnationaliser et à mondialiser les histoires nationales et internationale. Un historien américain s'est félicité récemment de la capacité d'adaptation de l'histoire diplomatique américaine à l'international history et à la world history, et de la reconnaissance de son apport à ces deux nouvelles disciplines, mais sans insister sur l'échelle impériale 252 . Il est vrai que nombre d'auteurs ont été tentés d'ignorer les apports de l'histoire classique des relations internationales, voire de la mépriser comme la « nouvelle histoire » à la française avait été tentée de le faire.…”