Writing the world: disciplinary history and beyond

Abstract

In order to grasp some of the key intellectual developments and trends that shaped the global politics of twentieth century and continue to shape our own world—neo‐classical economics, modernization theory, deterrence theory, the democratic peace, among others—it is necessary to explore the history of the human sciences. It is important, in other words, to examine the role of the modern research university in producing and diffusing ideas about the self, society, the economy and world order. International Relations (IR), and political science more generally, played a significant role in this story. In recent years we have seen a growth of interest in the history of IR, though it is still an underdeveloped area of research. Among other things, scholars have shown that many of the foundational myths of the discipline—the views that inform textbook understandings of the past and present—are deeply flawed. This article first surveys this recent work, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and then proceeds to offer some thoughts on future directions for research. It identifies a range of questions and topics that have yet to be adequately addressed, and draws on the latest methodological work in intellectual history, highlighting some new interpretative approaches that can enrich scholarship in this area.

The eternal divide? History and International Relations

“…Bartleson, 1995) and intellectual history (e.g. Bell, 2009) have sought to combine rich historical insights with major theoretical statements. As such, this article does not seek to establish a complete account of the relationship between IR theory and history.…”

Looking Back to Move Forward: Historicising the Construction of Disciplinary Narratives in European Political Science and International Relations

“…While there are more critical accounts of the privileged positioning of US approaches within IR (Smith, 2000) and the origins and way in which the construction of histories have played a role in serving the interests of the dominant narratives (cf. Schmidt, 1998;Bell, 2009), there has been surprisingly little literature that compares the trajectories of the two disciplines. Moreover, what becomes apparent as this literature is compared, is that both sets of disciplinary histories and assessments of the discipline are Western-centric, arguably both reflecting and reinforcing Western dominance, not only in the actualities of politics as practice, but also as knowledge-based dominance through disciplinary analyses.…”

Changing the world? The problem of action in international politics

“…Academic units are essentially artificial devices to enable teaching and research to be conducted in a manageable way; their boundaries need not impede intellectual creativity, academic freedom or the focus on problems that do not fit into familiar Procrustean beds (Bell 2009). …”