1: Studying and Periodising the Political History of the XX-XXI Century Flashcards
why do we study history?
popular notion that history has lessons
also history having a strong formative value and that historical awareness is crucial for opinion makers and policy makers
why do leaders reference history in speeches?
aim to convey that the leader understands history, has mastered the historical process and that their decisions are informed from historical knowledge
why do we have the lessons of history approach?
hard to imagine a stronger authority validating your decision than the past
ultimate authority
the past as one of the few available compasses we have when taking a decision
potential contradictions to the alleged ‘lessons of history’ and of a utilitarian approach to the study of the past
- diachronic comparisons as paradoxically ahistorical
- intrinsically problematic and can’t really compare so simply different events that happen centuries apart
- idea of evoking history by ceasing to look at history for what it is - rigidity vs messiness/opaqueness and contingency of the historical process
- complex and not about simplifying the past but developing a full awareness of its complexity
- a lot of dimensions disappear when you have the idea of looking at history to gain clear-cut lessons - instrumentality - do we only study useful and applicable history?
- one of the most abused and misunderstood notions of history is the lesson of munich which was then used to justify some of the worst decisions of foreign policy makers in the US
what do we study when engaging with XX/XXI century world history?
history as the privileged discipline in creating or inventing a national imagination
today’s context and reality shapes the way we approach the past
what has characterised the historical study of modern IR and of world politics?
- nation-centric perspective and foreign policy
- diplomatic exchanges and the study of IR - exceptionalist propensity
- study a given country’s foreign policy because you believe there’s something unique about that country’s policy - emphasis on domestic drivers (intermestic)
- interplay between domestic and international and how things like domestic politics shapes, informs or influences foreign policy decisions - privileged disciplinary interlocutors: international law and IR
- diplomatic dimension of analysis
- law and history going together - centrality of power
- how it is projected and how power affects relations - centrality of war: failure of diplomacy and foundational moments of new order
- war in this perspective as central because war shapes and transforms the international system
- wars as the foundational moment of a new global order - importance of international organisations
how has this history of IR/diplomatic history changed and evolved over time?
increasing attention for deep/structural forces like demography, economy, culture, ideology
- forces that affect how international systems evolve and define the parameter of best possibilities for actors in the system
- however, emphasising on forces downplays the agency of actors
emphasis on multiple sources of influence on the decision-making process
- e.g. role of non-governmental actors
dialogue with sociology
- agency of a given actor constrained by a variety of broader/larger forces
multi-archival/multinational approach and scholarship
long durée vs. narrow research short-termism
- important and fundamental to look at long term dynamics since we emphasise the centrality and importance of deep structural forces against individuals
continuities, power, state interests and top-down approach
- structural parameters of power
- looking at high level decision makers as key actors constrained in their possibility to act by larger forces
how has this history been continually challenged and its fundamental assumptions questioned?
against primarily state/nation-centric narratives
- looking at other actors to expand the range of sources considered
expanding actors and sources (multinational/multi-archival turn)
- emergence of non-state actors which led to more analysis on non-state global, national and transnational actors
against a privileged top down approach and the importance/agency of lesser actors
- look at what is long considered a minor actor, study that and change the way you look at IR
questioning the alleged neutrality of a source
- documents we engage with are made accessible by a given power
- what you are seeing is what you are allowed to see but with a new focus of communications post-1990s, we don’t know what is preserved and what is not
the linguistic/postmodern turn - is historical narrative nothing more than fiction?
- alleged neutrality as something that is a myth and a legend
global turn in historical studies
connection to globalisation but not a history of it
- consequence of a new context where we are increasingly integrated on a global perspective
globe as an indispensable and natural unit of analysis vs. nation-centric/exceptionalist narratives
emphasis on context, analogies, exchanges, connections and interdependencies: ‘connected histories’ vs. grand narratives of modernisation
- movement away from the system and the structural dimension
- more concern with exchanges, connections and interdependencies
rejection of Eurocentrism or internalism
- going global and beyond a certain parochial, national, Eurocentric or transatlantic understanding of modern history
propensity to privilege long durée
how to do global history?
deep and total history
- idea of big history and collaborations between history and hard sciences
comparative history
processes/drivers of global integration: exchanges, crossings, interdependencies, hybridisations
micro-history
- not because of the impact micro-individual agents have but what they reveal
merits of the global turn
beyond parochialisms (nations or Eurocentrism)
agency and importance of forgotten actors/silenced voices
broader picture with global/transnational dynamics
importance of the global turn for the study of history
visible limits of the global turn
is it feasible?
- practical issues like a unique level of knowledge necessary to be able to do this kind of history
persistence of monumental archival asymmetries
- historian craft based on slow and precise analysis of primary sources
epistemological challenge
risk of neglecting power hierarchies and unequal distribution of agency
dynamics of disintegration and the neglected/losers of globalisation
