Burk/Eldridge Edited Correspondence Emails I-III

Eldridge to Burk I

Although in class you sometimes ask for an 'argument' I have struggled
with how to frame such an argument in the context of the aims of your course. In my history writing I try to avoid simple causal explanations of topics 'What caused event x? etc.' or GCSE-style regurgitation of all available facts about a period but this is what seminars mostly consist of, it seems to me. For instance, should we be considering what the various schools of diplomatic> history represent (revisionist/realist etc.)? Should we consider the influence of postmodernism on the study of diplomatic history (for most other modules this seems a popular question)? What weight should we give internalfactors and issues? Should we be considering whether the nation-state is still a valid more of historical analysis (this has been done a few times in other classes)? Should the ultimate aim of diplomatic history be to decide who is 'winning' and has the most political power at any given time? - I am exagerating but that does seem to be the goal of the course sometimes.

In short, I am not really from a diplomatic history background and don't really know what it means so would appreciate a bit of guidance from you. Overall I acknowledge I have been a touch reticent in seminars but I do not feel there is a lack of effort on my part for I spend more time researchingyour seminars than my other two modules and with my job I have very little time> to> spare. Sometimes I read lots of books on your list but don't know what I'm looking for, at other times I research things that I do not bring up because they do not seem relevant to the discussion that develops. I am not suggesting you dictate with exact precision every aspect of study, I don't think either of us would want that, but I would appreciate suggestions on the nature of debate, what sort of questions would be appropriate to ask, what conceptual apparatus I could or should be using.

--------------------------

Burk to Eldridge II

I also insist on a rigorous level of analysis, but you are correct that I do not try to box in students - or myself - by insisting ona pattern, whether it is realist or functionalist or postmodernist. And of course one has to concentrate on finding out causes and effects, as far as> possible: history is change over time, not a timeless void, and how canone interpret, in any mode, if this has not been established? You will doubtless answer that postmodernism will indicate that we can never know, but I am a proud defiant empiricist, and spend thousands of hours in> archives going through documents and reading other primary sources as far as I can, to establish what events took place, to compare accounts, always asking myself why the differences are what they are. The outbreak of war between states has more than once depended upon when a dispatch reached a Foreign Office, or upon who read it and what decision was taken and why. This may not turn you on, and the simple answer may be that you aretrapped> within an area of the discipline which does not stimulate you. I can understand this: I myself find social history less than engaging. But it seems to me that there is no point in doing history if it is not anattempt to establish what happened, why it happened, the consequences of itshaving happened, and how others have interpreted it, leading to new thoughts, new ideas, new approaches, and on it goes.

You imply that the main thing we do in seminar is to regurgitate facts, or look for simple causal explanations, but it is quite clear to me> that most members of the seminar do not know the facts, and if I can getan outline set out about whatever we are discussing, we can then go on from there. What's to interpret, if the basic knowledge isn't there? If you would like me to indicate, I will tell all of you what I want you to know> about the following week. I have done this once or twice. This will> perhaps be the better approach, since none of you, as far as I can tell, have much academic background in the topic. This is not a complaint: it is a statement of fact, given that high politics and diplomacy is something of a minority subject (although having said that, it is one of the two most> popular topics in the department at undergraduate level).
Since diplomatic history considers the relations of states with each> other in the period with which we are dealing - less relevant, perhaps, in> the ancient Near East or amongst those whose organizing principle is the> tribe or clan - it seems a bit strange to wonder whether the nation-state is a valid mode of historical analysis. Whether one likes it or not,> presidents, secretaries of state and Congress in the US, and prime> ministers, the Cabinet and parliament in the UK conceive, plan, and> implement foreign policy - if only because there has to be a crisis ofsome> sort for most other people to pay any attention to it at all.

Any element in life can have an impact on foreign relations. But this is one class for two terms, and I try to get an overview of thesubject> and the period. Students who then want to dig more deeply into aparticular topic can write a dissertation on it.

--------------------------

Eldridge to Burk III

Thankyou for your response on this matter, it has been useful. In part thedecision to do your course was because I understood it to be firmlyempirical,so I thought it would contrast nicely with other courses I am doing and havedone, which tend to lean towards postmodernism in their methodology.

However, it seems my understanding of postmodernism differs slightly fromyoursfor Ithink there are few that say you cannot know the past per se, maybe Derrida,not that I understand Derrida much, but most say that because we can knowthepast in many different ways it is how we represent and frame our historythataffects things, ie which bits we leave in and which we take out sincehistoryalways has to be selective. Postmodernism links this with power, hence, Isuspect, that is why diplomatic history does not tend to get on well withpostmodernism, as diplomatic history is all about elites.

For instance, a postmodernist might take issue with the choice of periodization and representation of time for your course. The fact that you chosen thetwentieth century means there is an implicit support for the idea of the'American Century', the theory of American ascendency in this period, whichisalmost self-congratulatory and similar to the triumphalist Americanhistoriography produced after the end of the Cold War. This is demonstratedinthe course by America's juxtaposition with Britain, which, you have argued,isin decline during this period. This is not a complaint: it is a statement offact, I read it in one of your articles. The choice and representation ofevents supports this argument, such as the emphasis on the periodimmediatelyfollowing the Second World War. Areas of ambiguity are moved through morequickly, such as the 1920s and 30s. The bibliography also seems weightedagainst Left Wing writers, for instance you have not included manyrevisionistwriters (to my knowledge). Not that all this invalidates your argument inanyway but it does mean that our approach is laden with ideology, discourse ifyouwill, before we approach the texts and our analysis is not a neutral processandthus not simply a case of verifying/extracting facts. This might be helpedbyacknowledgement of your aims at the outset. You might say in reply that wearefree to research any book we like perhaps even research any topic we like,however constraints of time make this unlikely, as well as the fact thatdiscussion in seminars would be hindered if we had all read completelydifferent things. Besides, the limits of your discourse seem quite firmlyenforced.

There is a generally linear, chronological progression through events, asopposed to, for example, a conceptual approach or heavy focus on key texts.This chronology relies upon a notion of an essential continuity thatconstitutes the nation-state. The boundedness and unicity of a nation-statearesocial constructs. A linear history also implies trajectory for the future.Britain or America thus appears to be an evolving species through time -thereis thus an underlying historical model that our seminars would struggle todislodge given that you choose the topics. In addition, by comparing Britainand America in this fashion the course becomes almost a paean to Americanindustrialism. Two countries are quantifiably and objectively compared,implying the mark of a civilization is its manufacturing output. Americasupplants Britain as world power, presumably with the "tribes" and "clans"youpreviously refer to ranking lower. One might therefore identify an elementofmodernist cultural chauvanism interwoven into the course which is notacknowledged.

The emphasis on establishing facts, with its strong subject-object dichotomydistracts from the ideological orientation of the course. A postmodernistwouldnot say that verifying facts is unimportant but it is prudent to acknowledgehowknowledge is manufactured. Wars are not caused by telegrams arriving inforeignoffices, they are caused by people on one side of an imaginary line thinkingthey are different from people on the other side of that line; history has a lot to do with the creation of those lines.