Crossing Borders: Transnationalism, Diplomatic History, and the Future of
German Studies

Ronald J. Granieri, University of Pennsylvania

As every tourist knows from the bemused expressions of the locals, even the
most exciting new discovery can be old news to those who already live on the
other side of the border. Since crossing borders is central to
transnationalism, the truism is especially suited to our present discussion.
The recent rediscovery of transnationalism in German Studies is very exciting,
but it looks different to diplomatic historians, for whom the transnational
perspective did not have to be rediscovered because it had never been lost.
Nevertheless, both the new arrivals and the locals can profit from their
encounters, with the former's excitement at discovery inspiring the latter to
reassess what had been taken for granted, as long as both sides approach their
encounter in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Respect, however, is something that diplomatic history, once the dominant mode
of historical writing, does not get a lot of these days in the academy.
Although this trend is less apparent in Germany than among historians of
Germany abroad, a look at dissertation titles or the self-reported interests of
younger faculty confirms that different priorities now predominate. Indeed, in
many North American History departments, graduate students are discouraged from
identifying themselves as diplomatic historians, lest they make themselves
intellectually irrelevant or, what is worse, unemployable. That has led many
scholars interested in international relations to avoid the term "Diplomatic
History" altogether, preferring to speak of international, global,
multinational or transnational history.

The point of these reflections is not to offer another jeremiad attacking
contemporary academic practices. One can read more than enough of them
elsewhere on H-Net. Such complaints are not only tiresome, but also beside the
point. The goal should not be to rely on one approach, but rather to transcend
the often too heavily fortified and labeled borders in the profession. I would
certainly not say that names do not matter, but all labels are inadequate, and
a rigid attachment to or rejection of a particular approach, or an assumption
that a new name means a new thing, does not advance our common intellectual
enterprise. Is transnationalism therefore just old wine in new (or at least
newly labeled) bottles? No, but neither is it completely new wine, and the
contemporary scholarly community would be enriched by a better appreciation of
the contribution diplomatic history can make to the future of German Studies.

It is possible that many of the scholars who are embracing transnationalism
today will argue that what they are doing is utterly different from diplomatic
history. My response, however, would be to ask: Different from what? Different
from a history that focuses solely on the operations of nation-states?
Different from a history that concentrates only on official correspondence and
documents? If that is what they mean, then they need to take a closer look at
the kind of work that is being done under the broad category of diplomatic
history, and to reconsider their reservations about it. Those reservations are
the primary reason why too many younger scholars have failed to see how much
interesting work has been done in the field, and how much more can be done in
the future.

One major reason why younger scholars in particular have abandoned diplomatic
history is because of the mistaken impression that because international
politics is an elite activity, the study of it is inherently elitist and
patriarchal. Reinforced by the salvos on both sides of the culture wars,
diplomatic history carries the stigma of being a conservative preserve, as if
all diplomatic history were nothing more than living white males relating what
one dead white male said to another. Certainly, both the practice and the
practitioners of diplomatic history have lived down to the stereotypes, but
that is not always so. Anyone who reads the most important recent works in the
field, such as Matthew Connelly's _A Diplomatic Revolution_, which analyzes the
Algerian struggle for independence from a variety of perspectives, can see that
neither the people who study it nor the conclusions that they reach are so
easily pigeonholed. [1] There are as many ways to pursue diplomatic history as
historians, many of whom draw on the insights of the cultural and linguistic
turns as they seek to understand the forces, groups, and individuals that have
shaped the international system. No serious discussion of transnationalism can
go on without including them.

At a time when some fields struggle to "bring the state back in," diplomatic
history has always appreciated the role of the state, even as diplomatic
historians help us understand that there were other actors involved as well.
Diplomatic history at heart need not be merely the history of relations between
chancelleries. Especially with regard to the modern world, it means
appreciating the role of economic forces, NGOs, political parties, and cultural
organizations. Scholars should not allow themselves to bog down in superseded
debates over "Primat der Außen/Innenpolitik." We need instead to see the
interwoven reality between politics within states and politics across borders,
as well as the connections between official politics and the unofficial
definition and production of interests and policies. Diplomatic historians have
been among the leaders in this attempt to advance our understanding of the
links between domestic politics and diplomacy, both official and unofficial.

German historians should be especially interested in the continuing relevance
of diplomatic history in its many forms. As the physical borders of Germany
have expanded and contracted over the centuries, the Germans have influenced
and been influenced by transnational currents more than any other European
nation. Those currents can be understood in both power/political and cultural
terms. The power/political elements are better known, and include everything
from German imperialism in Eastern Europe in the 15th Century to the Nazi New
Order to postwar German multilateralism as embodied in Willy Brandt's assertion
that "war should never again emerge from German soil." Diplomatic historians
can also make a contribution to understanding the impact of transnational
cultural movements, whether considering the influence of the Reformation in the
16th, Enlightenment thought in the 18th, or of Americanization in the 20th
Centuries. Whichever aspect scholars choose to study, the problem of Germany's
place in the larger European and global community is a central part of German
Studies, and should attract the attention of scholars even more in a world
where individual nations are no longer insulated against the changes wrought by
global cultural, social, economic, and political forces.

The contemporary international situation should show us all that the stakes are
simply too high for scholars to treat the study of international politics and
diplomacy as an intellectual backwater. The present enthusiasm for
transnationalism will prove its value if it can encourage a reintegration of
diplomatic history in its broadest contemporary form into German Studies. My
model for this is my own graduate training, which was admirably undogmatic. My
dissertation adviser, Michael Geyer, did not feel the need to label his
students, nor did he impose on them any particular version of historical
understanding, even as his penetrating questions encouraged all of his students
continually to reexamine the intellectual bases of their work. It was an
enviable combination in an adviser, and it is also a model that can be applied
with profit to our collective approach to German Studies.

The initial contact between natives and new arrivals is always tricky.
Suspicions can be overcome, however, if both sides are open to learning from
each other. Diplomatic historians have lived too long in relative isolation,
but they have much to contribute to the current exchange of ideas, just as they
will benefit from an expanded dialogue about the meaning and uses of
transnationalism. Renewed interest in transnationalism promises to reshape
German Studies for the new century. If all recognize that we can accomplish
more together than separately, crossing borders can be an initial step toward
overcoming them altogether.

Note

[1].. Matthew Connelly, _A Diplomatic Revolution: Algeria's Fight for
Independence and the Origins of the Post-Cold War Era_ (Oxford, 2002).

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS