View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's March 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's March 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
Recent posts on both H-Diplo and H-France demonstrate the need for clarification of terminology. Diplomatic history, international history, and transnationalism are terms which are being used confusingly and in various ways. For some, the latter two are interchangeable, and, for others, there is some sort of distinction between the first two. As an American diplomatic historian with a British doctorate in international history, I have always understood that we have here respectively the American and British terms for the same thing. If those who apparently distinguish between the two mean that the first is bilateral and the second multilateral, I can only say that multinational history has been the norm among the diplomatic historians I have known for at least 40 years. As I understand it, diplomatic/international history deals with relations between and among sovereign states, an occasional pre-state (the Palestinian Authority or relations with the metropole of a colony nearing independence), and international political entities organized according to states. Cultural diplomacy conducted by governments is generally included. Whether NGOs of consistent international scope (Red Cross/Crescent, Oxfam, Doctors without Borders) belong in this category might be a topic for discussion. Again as I understand it, transnational history is not or has not been about states or governments. In large part, it has focused on cultural and emotional currents. To my mind, these–however worthy–are not a primary focus of the diplomatic/international historian. However, in recent years there has developed an array of problems which are global or nearly so, and which concern governments, private (especially wealthy) individuals, electorates and many varieties of organizations, international and otherwise. These certainly sweep across borders. A few random examples: terrorism (all varieties), climate change, AIDS and certain other contagions, economic globalization and its effects, the more fundamentalist Islamist movements. Do we need a category for these problems, which are likely to grow in number and historical importance, or can we simply say that there is ample room here for both diplomatic/international historians and transnationalists to do their respective things side by side, no doubt with some overlap? In any event, let us clarify what we are talking about when we use the terms in question. Sally Marks Independent Historian