The "Next Big Thing": . The Future of Diplomatic History in a Global Age

It seems fitting to begin this address with a reference to Charles Maier, whose famous critique of our field, published twenty-three years ago, ushered in an era of critical introspection and self-flagellation among diplomatic historians. Whether intended or not, one of Maier’s more recent essays actually hints at the dawning of a new day, when diplomatic history might well return from the margin to the mainstream of historical studies. In “Consigning the Twentieth Century to History,” published in June 2000, Maier argues that the age of “territoriality,” an age of “bounded geographical space” marked by a “frontier at the edge and the lands within,” was coming to an end. Between 1870 and 1970, bounded space had provided the “basis for material resources, political power, and common allegiance,” for “identity space” and “decision space,” for state sovereignty, and for the great geopolitical struggles inscribed in the annals of diplomatic history. According to Maier, however, the era of territoriality had started to wane after 1970, coincident, I might add, with the waning of diplomatic history. In the new global age, information and technology, rather than territory, constitute the basis of economic and political power; allegiance to the state gives way to new forms of identity, and bounded space gives way to “culture or civilization” as the source of global conflict.1 If the decline of territoriality coincided with the decline of diplomatic history, specialists in the field might still take heart, or so Maier seemed to imply. After all, there was good work to be done exploring the unfolding process of globalization and the new identities and sources of conflict it created. Lynn Hunt, then president of the American Historical Association, made a similar point two years later, when she, too, seemed to predict a revival of diplomatic history. It had been a long time since such an eminence had nodded approvingly in our direction, yet there it was. Writing against a backdrop that included the decline of theory in historical studies and a rising concern with issues of globalization, Hunt noted how current events were forcing historians to ask new questions of the past and explore new approaches. It was in this context that she wondered if the “next big thing” would be “some kind of revival or refashioning of diplomatic” history.2 Actually, that refashioning has been going on for several years. As anyone familiar with the pages of Diplomatic History will know, the last decade or so has witnessed a growing number of scholarly articles dealing not only with new topics, such as those having to do with race or gender, but also with new theoretical approaches, notably those borrowed from cultural studies. On gender, for example, one thinks of Frank Costigliola’s important essays, or Kristin L. Hoganson’s work on the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars, or Robert Dean’s new book on gender and the Cold War, to name but a few.3 On race we can point to contributions by Brenda Gayle Plummer, Penny von Eschen, Michael Krenn, Marc Gallicchio, Thomas Borstelmann, Gerald Horne, James Meriwether, and Carol Anderson.4 And when it comes to the “cultural turn,” we think first and foremost of Emily S. Rosenberg. One of the most imaginative diplomatic historians of her generation, Emily’s brilliant work helped to clear a path for a batch of new books that borrowed from cultural studies, including Andrew S. Rotter’s book on the United States and India, Mark Bradley’s on Vietnam, Mary Renda’s on Haiti, and Matthew Connelly’s on Algeria, not to mention the books by Hoganson and Dean cited earlier.5 To be sure, more traditional approaches still dominate the field and the journal, but they increasingly share space with works, often by younger scholars, that are asking new questions and exploring new sources. The same diversity of paradigms, old and new, has led Tom Paterson and me to revise our joint venture, Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. In addition to essays on more established paradigms, the new volume contains chapters on cultural transfer by Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht, on modernization theory by Nick Cullather, on comparative history and the global frontier by Nathan J. Citino, on memory and foreign relations by Robert D. Schulzinger, on gender by Kristin Hoganson, on race and ethnicity by Gerald Horne, and on critical theory by Frank Costigliola. The new edition thus reflects more fully than its predecessor the intellectual pluralism that now marks a discipline that not long ago was seen as a wasteland by historians in other fields.6 Although diplomatic historians can take pride in these developments, they do not completely capture what may be the most in recent that our field at the of historical studies. by the of Maier and Hunt this the the of American history and The of this are years ago the of American established an I for a and to with in other the work on American history by foreign scholars, these to the and the the of American its the of American History an of published more work on American history by the United and a to books by similar most the of American with to the on the of American on this at a of the of Thomas of and at in these historians from the United States and a of to on to a new for American scholarly exploring new and published a of these in American History in a a book I According to and of American not the to and global a of the past a to of the as the of American and more by new of and global and cultural In and to the United States on a global well that a global context would of American notably a comparative one that the American with that of of such as to explore the way in the or the of as an has been and such as Charles and Michael to on questions of sovereignty, including American sovereignty, and how it and in an And still to context of the as the in historical they these and other historians with the of the published in by on of the of American the that globalization than a of American history, to be by the United States in a or to recent work dealing with and and with such as the and the of the the a history that with the but with that be or than the To a new of historians for this and a of the in history at American and in the way we and of more and more and was the of American the only that to in the In the most in the field of American studies. As Robert and other was more in the last two than the field of American studies. In its Cold American studies on of American that were and of I in the American the American the American and the American It as a a by the and of the American it and was in its of American and as for the in the and this the of in the and not to mention the of theory and studies, of an in global questions among specialists in American studies. as these specialists to explore issues of and gender, as well as and and it was to a American As Robert to of an in it the way of the from one in it for the United States a that in the for the of American of a American as and studies a new concern with the history of and with the and in the these the for what in American Thomas and other American and in the field of American studies to in a and the new of American studies in the that was one of the most in the history of that The decade important intellectual and with the in of and of United States and in by the of the American in the and the of the a address by and at that borrowed from the new in and studies and that to the of the The the for of the American Association, as in the in American and and the the same American the of the American Association, a of articles that with a of and was one of a new by specialists in American studies were to explore and similar to among American including the and As with the of American new forms of led to for in the American and for a new the of American and the American on a that American specialists with in the United of the American one address after on the of not to mention of foreign or that in a or C. and an for the American similar to the one that Thomas and at from the American of the this one at the and in The from a the new American to the the intellectual of and for more scholarly and other to the field of American studies The American had the such as the American Association, the for American the and American Association, the American of and the of American to name a from these and other in the and the of the American Association, so that the to the field was a global the new to its in The in to address the from The was in with the of the to the of among and and as a global this the dealing with in the process of globalization and with such global issues as geographical the on the and the global and the political and cultural of It from with a of approaches and in a of including history, and the as well as and the the to a that diversity of scholarly in the field, as the American to a of and in the American and the of American History were similar to those also in the American Historical Association, scholars, the new field of history. In this too, the to in a global and in of with with in history at the and with in the the of the History in the also a new concern with the growing of a in an increasingly global was a as Michael and Charles to the history of global to how the had been by the of the and to at these not only the comparative of and but also new and of and of and of and the new field of history had of the growing of It had to its of scholarly and had its journal, the of this for those of in the history of American foreign To with the good it that other historians are our several years diplomatic historians the of our field from the of historical and how we might a for it that other on to the of relations and an on The that we not done to to this rising To a the of American history a from those actually in American will with the sources cited by the in thus a will that of these reference by the most of our the same would be if the articles on and published in the of American I if the on similar at the of the American since In if are these or and by the work done by diplomatic also at the historians in the and 2000, and will only a might be specialists in the history of American foreign at volume American History in a and will only two chapters by of American foreign more at the historians in the of American for the included the in the to this only a in the history of American foreign more the a number of on by are not or specialists in our field, such as and the of in the by of or of and the for the by of the of similar might be of the scholarly articles on in Diplomatic It would not be to that these in such a among diplomatic historians. On the the of American History and American to name made a to the last traditional diplomatic history has not in this diplomatic historians. Between and the of American History published only one that might be as traditional diplomatic history. other articles on to the discipline in the of and cultural history or were by foreign or by to history in American studies and other the same the of American History and issues dealing with and topics, of with one from other than diplomatic The same point can be made American the of the American Association, whose as noted been discipline for more than a the in this on articles that explore cultural and approaches to such as and the of or from the for or in an of the of by diplomatic historians on the cultural and of Diplomatic historians might to the of American at but not yet to American its growing in and the by the American Association, of a more to from If diplomatic historians do not American or the of American as an for similar might be of the way specialists in other Diplomatic Although Diplomatic History has done a of its pages to are the cultural these are diplomatic historians approaches by in other It still the that in other our as an for the with been in other of history and to the American Historical the of American and the of among as for It also the with specialists in American studies. it how of not by diplomatic such as American American and American the same can be of the work done by specialists in and studies. Although of this work with the history of foreign it more to in the than in the pages of Diplomatic In with Matthew the most been in our field are not this It by or by historians of and or by specialists in cultural studies. for example, in a or J. The of and in or L. and in or in and the of of these by a diplomatic an in history. a a of in cultural studies, and the in volume are American historians and at these and other works, including a number of articles on similar published in a of one can the that diplomatic historians are of field to specialists in other to it that specialists in these other are the history of foreign relations and for traditional diplomatic historians are and in the its Diplomatic History to more on traditional than articles that take a cultural this also the with other in the same the for good articles of this to it increasingly to the I the of Diplomatic History years ago, the History was one of the with a similar Diplomatic History also for with and Cold and the of Cold the last two of Diplomatic for and in the after and as its on works, as Cold its in 2000, Cold History has published articles on Cold only a of be as a cultural or The same can be of the of Cold the of a this journal, too, has published traditional only History Diplomatic has to its traditional with of the approaches, Diplomatic I to has been than the other when it comes to by historians the United States or to an of scholarly As this our discipline still and from the of to be done to the that diplomatic history from other of those that are new in to be as and as as to our journal, and to it a of that not only for the work on traditional but also for new work by not been in the history of American foreign relations but are to the of American history. me to the of a of from in our field for including years as the of our journal, a that gives me a that I as as these however, are in It not to the work of of those what might be a more or traditional diplomatic history. I done share of in the not of it these and I to think such a would the the the to diplomatic history, now seems when to the cultural of recent years. And last on and the of the borrowed from theoretical and historical work on political and it on American in the Cold and not fully in with the and comparative approaches in of the new cultural and history. I still that traditional diplomatic history, with its on relations and on issues of and a of as well as it has been and still a of I to the of American history or the of American foreign relations as an of the One of the great in the history of our field the for the sources of American foreign an that the work of great notably whose the most to our field in the last and the only to a for American diplomatic history. the not to the of American history, the history of American foreign The that we with those to that history and take other to the of our field as an discipline in history as well as political might we in that To begin we are to the of foreign relations by the in our the American point the point made by One of only two diplomatic historians with a in American History in a space to the for we on the long of history and among diplomatic from the great historians of our such as Michael Hunt, and including whose and was to the and to sources. on this we might to at our those in traditional so will to American and the as of a can be done in by as I might done by the of the state in this with state in and the the Cold It can be done in other by the American of a in a global and in still by the and it as an rather than an American Although it may coming from a of the American we also are not only the but also the and not to those that the of state If we are historians of foreign not then the global for the and to name a the of our from to work on in this direction, as recent work by a of but more to be As has the history of relations not be the history of or the history of and on of or in the context of and and other global may but may also as the of those including the and geopolitical that often diplomatic historians. and are the of a new history and not our or the of our In this there will be to from in and studies and from those are now exploring the history of same are the field of American studies. from the work of historians in the the of the of and the of to the and of to a new of and and to to and the of the the of studies been by other to a new history of and and to the history of including and and in of the also important in the field of studies, in the work of and work to the and of in by the way and identities been to and the in by exploring the way has been from the of in a a space two In theory to on the and and on the way cultural are in of the other and with issues of and in an scholars, as Emily has explore the cultural that and with the new and historians of the and they to a new history of these as as of and as was and identities were and of cultural also be of traditional and not only the by our field, and were bounded by they also be of and that were to and a on and were to the frontier as Nathan has and not to the American and that diplomatic historians can from in history, comparative frontier studies or seen the frontier as to the of a global approaches with the new history and by a comparative and diplomatic historians can explore how cultural and how were how were the global and how often the of In the they can the of American as they the of American In Matthew Connelly’s recent book the been and a of diplomatic history in a global the of those in history and in the history of as well from the of studies, and to an history of for sources to in this and to the way also that in a of and cultural in a and and the and In the not only the of but of the not only of the Cold but also of and global of that It of a of and of and global of identities and the rising of of cultural and to the diplomatic and of the To be sure, when that American diplomatic historians not done to history from the history of the as they the history of the history of to and American historians of the American and specialists in American studies are more with and other Matthew Mary Mark Nathan Citino, and started to the of with a of relations to and as Michael Hunt in exploring the and gender that foreign and still Emily in from cultural studies and this of gives that diplomatic history on the edge of a great work I not such as the work done in the of history and I not to the of this the work that more traditional and paradigms, more than I to that a or the important foreign relations and state I to new of that of our new or in Lynn Hunt and Charles Maier, Emily and I that we for those are American history and our to the of a history that with the state or with the and more with and I of this as well for work on the sources of American foreign on the of on the of the state in and on the of on state If the of the intellectual how do we our and on what we In this of I the for by the American when it the American Association, and by the of American when it the and the on the of American I our to these in to American history history, in for more and for our and younger and in to the of the process by identities are and are and the of that the and the the same I as I an that to the new diversity in our field and the new in history. I would to that I as the last president of the for of American Foreign Relations. I if that will be the and not president has been On the I how it to that seemed so years as of Diplomatic I mention only of the as we to it in the when I the from the that it was if not and be with a more and a global it to that it several years and to that so I not the for on a I the new president of and to our by historians in other whose work the of history and the history of might in American studies, studies, and studies are on the cultural and of It would those in the new history whose work on comparative history and history. And it would those relations the American of the number of such as Charles Maier, or or whose work on the history of or such as those in history, or history, or the history of and an and field by the recent to and studies. this would the of our and its to the for of Relations. would to as It would to the of not only for but also for and other in history of or of The journal, too, would to be of and and would to be to articles dealing not only with relations but also with in the and with the and economic of are the and of such a the the name of our and the of our the of our historical on such as the American its its and the sources of that To be sure, work on these would but if they the with so other would we not our as diplomatic to the that we the of our then to that we new and new more more more in studies, and more with the approaches in such as those from the new history, studies, or these might we not the of our as as well as diplomatic and might we too, if the of so a of American had been to an of and to be I can other as such as the that books can be in not and that for and And what the that the the American still in global that such traditional as and are as important as they were when the field of diplomatic history that including the American still and still a for historical and that for these it to an for such and a that will I share of these and and thus that traditional diplomatic history, the of and not be by our or our they are at the same time I that intellectual diversity and pluralism are in and good for in will to capture that the kind of that at the of intellectual in the and the of the its as I might years as I our as as it to articles an in a to that was to one we to a that included more essays and To be sure, these were to our an to explore new and and thus helped Diplomatic History to as a of it now these and essays also had the of the number of scholarly articles that in in on that were coming in at a to a the one way or and for one or we the the and a of to decline in the last years of Although good Robert and Thomas has diplomatic history, will work to more there the that as diplomatic historians from history and as for it will more to Diplomatic History with our and our field so on the Cold that of the on and comparative and history now published by other such as the of the of the the History and the Historical of as more for in history, frontier history, or comparative and history, rather than diplomatic history. too, as noted Diplomatic History from that on the same kind of history that has been our and for and this will also it to the of our these and other I to the same by other the of American and the American the they and I and our and our journal, I that we our with the American Historical or the of American at other and to from in other are on a and our journal, will more and to in other of history. with the other I it will to our and our in the It will a more and to be important at a time when diplomatic historians still when history are in our field, when we at of the when there a diplomatic in these and when to of our As this I that an and are the the only to the of our field in It will a to other diplomatic such as do not a of It will new and the field and traditional diplomatic history from a increasingly in political rather than history It will our history of in with the history of foreign relations the Cold War, and for our field of the important such as the of and that are by specialists in other In these and other it will the on diplomatic history as history, as Lynn Hunt big thing” in historical studies.