1. Introduction.- 2. Writing the World (Remix).- 3. Aesthetic Realism.- 4. How Should We Approach the History of International Thought?.- 5. Threads and Boundaries: rethinking the intellectual history of International Relations.- 6. Internalism Versus Externalism in the Disciplinary History of International Relations.- 7. What’s at Stake in doing (Critical) IR/IPE Historiography? The Imperative of Critical Historiography.- 8. The English School’s Histories and International Relations.- 9. The Matter with History and Making History Matter.
Brian C. Schmidt is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University, Canada. He is the author of The First Great Debate in International Relations (2012), Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations edited with David Long (2005), and The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (1998). He is the co-editor of the Palgrave Macmillan History of International Thought series.
Nicolas Guilhot is Research Professor at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), France, and member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. His most recent publications include After the Enlightenment: Political Realism and International Relations in the mid-20th Century (2017) and The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory (2011).
This book critically investigates the historiography of International Relations. For the past fifteen years, the field has witnessed the development of a strong interest in the history of the discipline. The chapters in this edited volume, written by some of the field’s preeminent disciplinary historians, all manifest the best of an innovative and exciting generation of scholarship on the history of the discipline of International Relations. One of the objectives of this volume is to take stock of the historical turn. Yet this volume is not simply a stock-taking exercise, as it also intends to identify the limitations and blind spots of the recent historiographical literature. The chapters consider a range of diverse thinkers and examine their impact on understanding various dimensions of the field’s history.