Defining and Doing the History of American Foreign Relations: A Primer

Abstract

The charges are now legion. The field of American foreign relations history, we have been told again and again by discerning specialists and superficial nonspecialists alike, is mired in ethnocentrism, parochialism, narrowness, and staleness. Historians of American foreign relations, reads the familiar indictment, are adrift in the backwater of historical inquiry and desperately in need of new directions. There is allegedly too much detailed description from an ever-expanding supply of archival documents and too little analysis and synthesis. American foreign relations historians fail to learn foreign languages and fail to exploit foreign archives. They cannot even agree upon what to call the field—diplomatic history, the history of foreign policy, foreign relations history, or international history? This tale of woe reminds me of the story about the taciturn Maine farmer who was asked if the previous night's hurricane had damaged his barn. “Don't know,” he answered. “Haven't found it yet.” Not all is afoul, of course. In fact, much is positive, and this symposium and others signal the field's vitality and diversity. My purpose here is not to rehash the debate, but rather to build upon it in the form of a primer. I propose to define the field of the history of American foreign relations (what are we trying to do?), identify some of the well-explored topics in the field (what are we doing successfully?), suggest two subjects in the field that receive inadequate attention (what might we be doing that we are not?), and recommend some practical steps for improving performance (what can we do?).1