![]() McNeill, one of the most eminent living historians, at a conference some years ago may illustrate what I mean. The more serious issue seems instead one of fit or misfit. On both sides, nonuse or insufficient use of the other’s material may be a bigger problem than abuse. Most international relations studies I read take history seriously and try to use it responsibly, and many do a good job of it. ![]() Misunderstanding and misuse of the other side’s materials and findings certainly happen in both camps, but in neither case is this essential or defining for the practice. The basic problem does not seem to me one of the use or abuse of historical evidence by international relations theorists and analysts, or vice versa. The first-person pronouns are in it as truth in advertising, to indicate that it rests on reflection and experience rather than on research and represents an attempt to explain, to myself as well as others, why my efforts to use international relations theory in doing international history have sometimes been rewarding, sometimes disappointing and frustrating. Inttemational RelationsTheory Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit I M y contribution to this symposium represents the point of view of a historian of international politics rather than an international relations theorist or analyst, is formed by the experiences and needs of that pursuit, and remains provisional even for me. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |