Brothers under the skin: Diplomatic history and international relations

International Security

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 34-43

  Haber, Stephen H ^a   Kennedy, David M ^a   Krasner, Stephen D ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21744443353     PISSN: 01622889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/isec.22.1.34     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979); Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984); and Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976).
2. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979); Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984); and Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976).
3. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979); Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984); and Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976).
4. Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960).
5. James Fearon, "Rationalist Explanations for War," International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Summer 1995), pp. 379-414.
6. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977).
7. Peter J. Katzenstein, Culture Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996), chap. 6.
8. John Gerard Ruggie, "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order," in Stephen D. Krasner, ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 195-231.
9. See John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality (New York: Free Press, 1995), for an illuminating explication of social facts that must be based on shared subjective understanding, including language, but that can be objectively known by an observer.
10. One difference between the two literatures is the overt nature of these ideological objectives in the new history. Consider the following introduction to an article on subaltern studies by Florencia Mallon. "This is not an easy time for scholars who work on Latin America. Over the past five years or so, many of our most important and inspirational historical narratives have come undone; the Cuban revolution is dying a slow death after the collapse of the Soviet Union, dragged down by the morass of global capitalism, the internal erosion of social gains, and a leadership grown old in the holding of centralized power. The Sandinistas lost control of the state in 1990 and faced the future internally divided, needing to make broad coalitions if they are to regain a place in the executive branch (where is their stunning political majority of 1979-81?). In Chile, the post-Pinochet Christian Democrats have hailed the dictatorship's radical privatization and free-market reforms as 'modernization,' tarnishing the memory of Chilean aspirations for social justice under Salvador Allende and the Chilean statist model of economic development that emerged from the first 'popular unity' government of the late 1930s. In Peru, Sendero Luminoso has confused and confounded those of us accustomed to supporting peoples' struggles, first by killing an astounding number of the people they were supposedly struggling for, then because their 'maximum leader' reached an agreement with an authoritarian free-market-oriented president after only a few weeks in captivity One could go on and on. But the main question, simply put, is what is a progressive scholar to do? If we continue to commit to emancipatory, bottom-up analysis and yet can no longer simply ride one of our various Marxist or Marxian horses into the sunset, what are the alternatives. Are there other horses to ride? . . . Does not subaltern studies offer us the perfect compromise? Formulated by a group of intellectuals based in the Third World, anticolonial and politically radical yet conversant with the latest in textual analysis and postmodern methods: what more could a cautious, progressive scholar hope for?" See Florencia Mallon, "The Promise and Dilemma of Subaltern Studies: Perspectives from Latin American History," American Historical Review, Vol. 99, No. 5 (1994), pp. 1491-1492.