1. Top of page
  2. Abstract

In order to grasp some of the key intellectual developments and trends that shaped the global politics of twentieth century and continue to shape our own world—neo-classical economics, modernization theory, deterrence theory, the democratic peace, among others—it is necessary to explore the history of the human sciences. It is important, in other words, to examine the role of the modern research university in producing and diffusing ideas about the self, society, the economy and world order. International Relations (IR), and political science more generally, played a significant role in this story. In recent years we have seen a growth of interest in the history of IR, though it is still an underdeveloped area of research. Among other things, scholars have shown that many of the foundational myths of the discipline—the views that inform textbook understandings of the past and present—are deeply flawed. This article first surveys this recent work, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and then proceeds to offer some thoughts on future directions for research. It identifies a range of questions and topics that have yet to be adequately addressed, and draws on the latest methodological work in intellectual history, highlighting some new interpretative approaches that can enrich scholarship in this area.

  • 1

    There are different accounts of what is encompassed by the ‘social sciences’. I would include, minimally, sociology, economics, history, geography, psychology, anthropology and political science. See Theodore Porter and Dorothy Ross, ‘Writing the history of social science’, in Theodore Porter and Dorothy Ross, eds, The Cambridge history of science, vol. 7: The modern social sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 1–10.

  • 2

    Chris Brown, ‘International political theory—a British social science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2: 1, 2000, p. 118.

  • 3

    The study of national and/or transnational approaches to IR is now blossoming. See esp. Arlene Tickner and Ole Waever, International Relations scholarship around the world (London: Routledge, 2008); Knud Erik Jørgensen and Tonny Brems Knudsen, eds, International Relations in Europe: traditions, perspectives and destinations (London: Routledge, 2006); Ole Waever, ‘The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52: 4, 1998, pp. 687727. Cf. Raewyn Connell, Southern theory: social science and the global dynamics of knowledge (Cambridge: Polity, 2008).

  • 4

    On the fortunes of intellectual history in general, see Anthony Grafton, ‘The history of ideas: precept and practice, 1950–2000 and beyond’, Journal of the History of Ideas 67: 1, 2006, pp. 132; Annabel Brett, ‘What is intellectual history now?’, in David Cannadine, ed., What is history now? (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 113–32.

  • 5

    David Armitage, ‘The fifty years' rift: intellectual history and International Relations’, Modern Intellectual History 1: 1, 2004, pp. 97109.

  • 6

    Theodore Porter, ‘Speaking precision to power: the modern political role of social science’, Social Research 73: 4, 2006, pp. 1275, 1281. See also Lawrence Goldman, Science, reform and politics in Victorian Britain: the Social Science Association, 1857–1886 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Thomas Haskell, The emergence of professional social science: the American Social Science Association and the nineteenth-century crisis of authority (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977); Dorothy Ross, The origins of American social science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); James Scott, Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed (London: Yale University Press, 1998); Michel Foucault, Security, territory, population: lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978, trans. Graham Burchell (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008).

  • 7

    Porter, ‘Speaking precision to power’, p. 1278.

  • 8

    See e.g. Gabriel Almond, ‘Political science: the history of the discipline’, in Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, eds, A new handbook of political science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 50–96.

  • 9

    Christopher Flood, Political myths (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 41. Cf. Duncan Bell, ‘Agonistic democracy and the politics of memory’, Constellations 15: 1, 2008, pp. 14866.

  • 10

    For examples, old and new, see John Gunnell, The descent of political theory: the genealogy of an American vocation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); John Gunnell, Imagining the American polity: political science and the discourse of democracy (Philadelphia: Philadelphia State University Press, 2004); David Easton, John Gunnell and Luigi Graziano, eds, The development of political science: a comparative survey (London: Routledge, 1991); James Farr, John Dryzek and Stephen Leonard, eds, Political science in history: research programs and political traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); James Farr and Raymond Seidelman, eds, Discipline and history: political science in the United States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993); Ido Oren, Our enemies and US: America's rivalries and the making of political science (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003).

  • 11

    For example, John Burrow, Stefan Collini and Donald Winch, That noble science of politics: a study in nineteenth-century intellectual history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir and Shannon Stimson, eds, Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007). The paucity of work on Britain is discussed in Robert Adcock and Mark Bevir, ‘The history of political science’, Political Studies Review 3: 1, 2005, pp. 116. IR is now a partial exception to this.

  • 12

    For a useful survey of the literature, see Brian Schmidt, ‘On the history and historiography of International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Beth Simmons and Thomas Risse, eds, Handbook of international relations (London: Sage, 2002), pp. 3–23.

  • 13

    For one version of a triumphal narrative emplotment, see Kenneth Waltz, ‘Realist thought and neorealist theory’, Journal of International Affairs 44: 1, 1990, pp. 2137.

  • 14

    David Long and Peter Wilson, eds, Thinkers of the twenty years' crisis: interwar idealism reassessed (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995); Peter Wilson, The international theory of Leonard Woolf (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003); Lucian Ashworth, Creating international studies: Angell, Mitrany and the liberal tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999); Renée Jeffrey, Hugo Grotius in international thought (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006), chs 4–5; Brian Schmidt, ‘Lessons from the past: reassessing the interwar disciplinary history of IR’, International Studies Quarterly 42: 3, 1998, pp. 43359;Casper Sylvest, ‘Interwar internationalism, the British Labour Party and the historiography of International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 48: 2, 2004, pp. 40932

  • 15

    Lucian Ashworth, ‘Where are the idealists in interwar International Relations?’, Review of International Studies 32: 2, 2006, pp. 291308; Miles Kahler, ‘Inventing International Relations: International Relations theory after 1945′, in Michael Doyle and John Ikenberry, eds, New thinking in International Relations theory (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997), pp. 20–53; Andreas Osiander, ‘Re-reading early twentieth century IR theory: idealism revisited’, International Studies Quarterly 42: 3, 1998, pp. 40932;Joel Quirk and Darshan Vigneswaran, ‘The construction of an edifice: the story of a first great debate’, Review of International Studies 31: 1, 2005, pp. 89107;Cameron Thies, ‘Progress, history, and identity in International Relations theory: the case of the idealist–realist debate’, European Journal of International Relations 8: 2, 2002, pp. 14785;Peter Wilson, ‘The myth of the “first great debate”’, Review of International Studies 24: 5, 1998, pp. 115.

  • 16

    On realism, see the references in Duncan Bell, ‘Under an empty sky: realism and political theory’, in Bell, ed., Political thought and International Relations: variations on a realist theme (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 1–26. On the British fortunes of realism, see Ian Hall, ‘Power politics and appeasement: political realism in British international thought, c. 1935–1955’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 8: 2, 2006, pp. 17492. See also Michael Cox, ed., E. H. Carr: a critical appraisal (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000); Charles Jones, E. H. Carr and International Relations: a duty to lie? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Jonathan Haslam, The vices of integrity: E. H. Carr, 1892–1982 (London: Verso, 1999); the special edition of International Relations dedicated to Herz (22: 4, 2008); Reed Davis, ‘An uncertain trumpet: reason, anarchy and Cold War diplomacy in the thought of Raymond Aron’, Review of International Studies 34: 4, 2008, pp. 64568; Ian Hall, The international thought of Martin Wight (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006); Ian Hall and Lisa Hill, eds, British international thought from Hobbes to Namier (Basingstoke: Palgrave, forthcoming 2009).

  • 17

    Casper Sylvest, British liberal internationalism, 1880–1930: making progress? (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009); Jeannie Morefield, Covenants without swords: idealist liberalism and the spirit of empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005); and, on ‘liberal militarism’, David Edgerton, Warfare state: Britain, 1920–70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Also relevant here is the literature on liberalism and empire produced by scholars such as Jennifer Pitts, Karuna Mantena, Georgios Varouaxakis, Uday Singh Mehta and Martti Koskenniemi. Cf. Duncan Bell, ‘Empire and international relations in Victorian political thought’, Historical Journal 49: 1, 2006, pp. 28198; Duncan Bell, ed., Victorian visions of global order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

  • 18

    Brian Schmidt, The political discourse of anarchy: a disciplinary history of International Relations (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998). On the postwar dynamics of discipline-formation, see David Long, ‘Who killed the International Studies Conference? Review of International Studies 32: 4, 2006, pp. 60322. See also Tim Dunne, Inventing international society: a history of the English School (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998).

  • 19

    Schmidt, The political discourse of anarchy, ch. 4; David Long and Brian Schmidt, eds, Imperialism and internationalism in the discipline of International Relations (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005); Robert Vitalis, ‘The graceful and generous liberal gesture: making racism invisible in American International Relations’, Millennium 29: 2, 2000, pp. 33156;Brian Schmidt, ‘Political science and the American empire: a disciplinary history of the “politics” section and the discourse of imperialism and colonialism’, International Politics 45: 6, 2008, pp. 67587.

  • 20

    Robert Vitalis, ‘Birth of a discipline’, in Long and Schmidt, eds, Imperialism and internationalism, pp. 160, 161.

  • 21

    Timothy Mitchell, ‘Economists and economy in the twentieth century’, in George Steinmetz, ed., The politics of method in the human sciences: positivism and its epistemological others (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005), pp. 126–41.

  • 22

    Hans Morgenthau, ‘Area studies and the study of international relations’, International Social Science Bulletin 4: 4, 1952, p. 647.

  • 23

    Cited in Nicolas Guilhot, ‘One discipline, many histories’, unpublished manuscript, Social Science Research Council, Nov. 2008. The Rockefeller Foundation also provided key funding for political theorists: Emily Hauptman, ‘From accommodation to opposition: how Rockefeller Foundation grants redefined relations between political theory and social science in the 1950s’, American Political Science Review 100: 4, 2006, pp. 6439. See also Inderjeet Parmar, “‘To relate knowledge and action …”: the Rockefeller Foundation's impact on foreign policy thinking during America's rise to globalism, 1939–1945’, Minerva 40: 3, 2002, pp. 23563.

  • 24

    Nicolas Guilhot, ‘The realist gambit: postwar American political science and the birth of IR theory’, International Political Sociology 2: 4, 2008, pp. 282, 289. On behaviouralism, see Robert Adcock, ‘Interpreting behavioralism’, in Adcock et al, eds, Modern political science, pp. 180–209.

  • 25

    Guilhot, ‘One discipline, many histories’.

  • 26

    See esp. Waltz, Theory of international politics (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1979). On Waltz's residual structural-functionalism, see Stacie Goddard and Daniel Nexon, ‘Paradigm lost? Reassessing Theory of international politics’, European Journal of International Relations 11: 1, 2005, pp. 961.

  • 27

    Porter and Ross, ‘Writing the history of social science’, p. 8.

  • 28

    Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir and Shannon Stimson, ‘A history of political science’, in Adcock, Bevir and Stimson, eds, Modern political science, pp. 12–17.

  • 29

    Schmidt, ‘On the history and historiography of International Relations’, p. 4. A similar argument—one that has had a greater impact on the field—is often made for studying the history of political thought.

  • 30

    A prominent example is John Mearsheimer, ‘E.H. Carr vs. idealism: the battle rages on’, International Relations 19: 2, 2005, pp. 13952. Mearsheimer simply repeats the caricatured vision of Carr and the interwar period against which the disciplinary historians have inveighed repeatedly.

  • 31

    e.g. Brian Schmidt, ‘The historiography of academic International Relations’, Review of International Studies 20: 2, 1994, pp. 34967. On conventional understandings of ‘internal’ versus ‘external’ explanatory schema, which figured heavily in debates over the history of science, see Donald Kelley, ‘Intellectual history and cultural history: the inside and the outside’, History of the Human Sciences 15: 2, 2002, pp. 119; Grafton, ‘The history of ideas’, pp. 5–8.

  • 32

    A commonly cited example of the latter is Stanley Hoffmann, ‘An American social science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106: 3 (1977), pp. 4160. Schmidt also identifies ‘contextualism’ with externalist approaches. Yet there are many different types of contextualism. For a prominent linguistic variant, which does not fall prey to Schmidt's criticisms, see Quentin Skinner, Visions of politics, vol. 1: Regarding method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). I have argued for the adoption of this perspective in IR in various places, including Language, legitimacy, and the project of critique’, Alternatives 27: 3, 2002, pp. 32750. See also Gerard Holden, ‘Who contextualises the contextualisers? Disciplinary history and the discourse about IR discourse’, Review of International Studies 28: 2, 2002, pp. 25370.

  • 33

    Schmidt, The political discourse of anarchy, pp. 37, 38.

  • 34

    For a recent discussion, see Bruce Kuklick, Blind oracles: intellectuals and war from Kennan to Kissinger (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).

  • 35

    Long, ‘Who killed the International Studies Conference?’ p. 621, suggests that ‘internalism’ cannot account for this development.

  • 36

    David Engerman, ‘American knowledge and global power’, Diplomatic History 31: 4, 2007, p. 603. On the dangers of over-emphasizing the ‘Cold War’ frame, however, see Joel Isaac, ‘The human sciences in Cold War America’, Historical Journal 50: 3, 2007, pp. 72546.

  • 37

    e.g. Ira Katznelson, Desolation and enlightenment: political knowledge after total war, totalitarianism and the Holocaust (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).

  • 38

    Joel Isaac, Conditions of knowledge: theory, philosophy, and the human sciences at Harvard University, ch. 2, unpublished manuscript, Queen Mary, University of London, 2008.

  • 39

    The most studied think-tank is RAND; see e.g. S. M. Amadae, Rationalizing capitalist democracy: the Cold War origins of rational choice liberalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003); David Hounshell, ‘The Cold War, Rand, and the generation of knowledge, 1946–1962’, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 27: 1, 1997, pp. 23767; Fred Kaplan, The wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983); Jennifer Light, From warfare to welfare: defense intellectuals and urban problems in Cold War America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). See also Inderjeet Parmar, Think tanks and power in foreign policy: a comparative study of the role and influence of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1939–1945 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004).

  • 40

    The terminology is indebted, but not reducible, to the work of Michel Foucault. While Foucault's own historical projects are in many respects flawed, and while his methodological injunctions can result in an implausible determinism, he produced insights of immense value to historians of the human sciences. (The same could be said of Pierre Bourdieu.) For criticisms of Foucault, see Gareth Stedman Jones, ‘The determinist fix: some obstacles to the further development of the linguistic approach to history in the 1990s’, History Workshop Journal 42: 3, 1996, pp. 1935. Cf. Gary Gutting, ‘Foucault and the history of madness’ in Gary Gutting, ed., The Cambridge companion to Foucault, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 49–74.

  • 41

    I employ the term ‘practice’ to reinforce the view—often denied by counterposing ‘thought’ (or ideas or theory) to ‘practice'—that forms of thinking always have practical dimensions. See also Joel Isaac, ‘Tangled loops: theory, history, and the human sciences in modern America’, Modern Intellectual History (forthcoming, 2009). For a parallel discussion, drawing on Bruno Latour, see Christian Büger and Frank Gadinger, ‘Reassembling and dissecting: international relations practice from a science studies perspective’, International Studies Perspectives 8: 1, 2007, pp. 90110.

  • 42

    Another example would be the role of demographic knowledge in shaping population control policies, on which see Matthew Connolly, Fatal misconception: the struggle to control world population (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008). On the ‘movement of social data into everyday life’, see Sarah Igo, The averaged American: surveys, citizens, and the making of a mass public (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); Light, From warfare to welfare.

  • 43

    David Engerman, Modernization from the other shore: American intellectuals and the romance of Russian development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); Nils Gilman, Mandarins of the future: modernization theory in Cold War America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). They borrow the term ‘high modernism’ from Scott, Seeing like a state. See also Frederick Cooper and Randall Packard, eds, International development and the social sciences: essays on the history and politics of knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997); David Engerman, Nils Gilman and Mark H. Haefele, eds, Staging growth: modernization, development, and the global Cold War (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2003); Michael Latham, Modernization as ideology: American social science and ‘nation building’ in the Kennedy era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000); David Milne, America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War (New York: Hill & Wang, 2008).

  • 44

    Murray Friedman, The neoconservative revolution: Jewish intellectuals and the shaping of public policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America alone: the neo-conservatives and the global order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Nicolas Guilhot, The democracy makers: human rights and the politics of global order (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).

  • 45

    From an underdeveloped literature, see R. M. Hartwell, A history of the Mont Pelerin Society (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995); Dieter Plehwe, Bernhard Walpen and Gisella Neunhöfer, eds, Neoliberal hegemony: a global critique (London: Routledge, 2005); Jamie Peck, ‘Remaking laissez-faire’, Progress in Human Geography 32: 1, 2008, pp. 343; Michel Foucault, The birth of biopolitics: lectures from the Collège de France, 1978–79, trans. Graham Burchell (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008).

  • 46

    Antoine Bousquet, The scientific way of warfare: order and chaos on the battlefields of modernity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008); Peter Galison, ‘The ontology of the enemy: Norbert Wiener and the cybernetic vision’, Critical Inquiry 21: 1, 1994, pp. 22866;Slava Gerovitch, ‘Mathematical machines of the Cold War: Soviet computing, American cybernetics and ideological disputes in the early 1950s’, Social Studies of Science 31: 2, 2000, pp. 25387; Sharon Ghamari-Tabrizi, The worlds of Herman Kahn: the intuitive science of thermonuclear war (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).

  • 47

    Charles Gannon, Rumors of war and infernal machines: technomilitary agenda-setting in British and American speculative fiction (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005).

  • 48

    Adam Tooze, ‘Revivifying bellicism’, unpublished MS, University of Cambridge, Nov. 2008. On the ‘military–industrial–media–entertainment network’—the interaction of military intellectuals, hi-tech industry and new simulation/computer technologies—see James Der Derian, Virtuous war (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2001). See also Sharon Ghamari-Tabrizi, ‘Simulating the unthinkable: gaming future war in the 1950s and 1960s’, Social Studies of Science 30: 2, 2000, pp. 163223. On how the radical French philosophers Deleuze and Guattari are employed in Israeli military doctrine, see Eyal Weizman, Hollow land: the architecture of Israeli occupation (London: Verso, 2007), ch. 7.

  • 49

    David H. Price, Anthropological intelligence: the deployment and neglect of American anthropology in the Second World War (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008); David H. Price, ‘Subtle means and enticing carrots: the impact of funding on American Cold War anthropology’, Critique of Anthropology 23: 4, 2003, pp. 373401; Peter Mandler, ‘Deconstructing Cold War anthropology’ in Duncan Bell and Joel Isaac, eds, The Cold War in pieces: new perspectives on postwar America (forthcoming, 2009). On post-9/11 Pentagon funding for the social sciences—and especially ‘Project Minerva’—see, accessed October 2008.

  • 50

    Ian Hacking, Historical ontology, p. 22. The term originates in Foucault, ‘What is enlightenment?’ (1984), in Paul Rabinow, ed., The Foucault reader (New York: Pantheon, 1984), pp. 32–50.

  • 51

    Hacking, Historical ontology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), pp. 9, 8.

  • 52

    Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, Objectivity (New York: Zone, 2007); Karin Cetina Knorr, Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999); Peter Novick, That noble dream: the ‘objectivity question’ and the American historical profession (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Theodore Porter, Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); Mary Poovey, A history of the modern fact: problems of knowledge in the sciences of wealth and society (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998); George Reisch, How the Cold War transformed philosophy of science: to the icy slopes of logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Mark Smith, Social science in the crucible: the American debate over objectivity and purpose (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994); John Zammito, A nice derangement of epistemes: post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

  • 53

    For an argument that neo-positivists in IR routinely claim legitimacy by drawing on the most culturally authoritative sciences, see Duncan Bell, ‘Beware of false prophets: biology, human nature, and the future of International Relations theory’, International Affairs 82: 3, 2006, pp. 47996.

  • 54

    Ian Hacking, Rewriting the soul: multiple personality and the sciences of memory (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995); Ian Hacking, ‘Making up people’, in Historical ontology, pp. 99–115.

  • 55

    Michael Callon, The laws of markets (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998); Donald MacKenzie, Fabian Muniesa and Lucia Sui, eds, Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007); Marion Fourcade, ‘Theories of markets and theories of society’, American Behavioural Scientist 50: 8, 2007, pp. 101534;Neil Fligstein and Luke Dauter, ‘The sociology of markets’, Annual Review of Sociology 33, 2007, pp. 10528;Timothy Mitchell, ‘The work of economics: how a discipline makes its world’, European Journal of Sociology 46: 2, 2005, pp. 297318.

  • 56

    Donald MacKenzie, An engine, not a camera: how financial models shape markets (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).

  • 57

    Isaac, ‘Tangled loops’.

  • 58

    Engerman, ‘American knowledge and global power’, pp. 600–601. A good example, collapsing distinctions between domestic and international, is the now-pervasive idea of ‘social capital’, on which see James Farr, ‘Social capital: a conceptual history’, Political Theory 32: 1, 2004, pp. 633, and the reply by Ben Fine, ‘Eleven hypotheses on the conceptual history of social capital’, Political Theory 35: 1, 2007, pp. 4753. See also Ben Fine, Social capital versus social theory: political economy and social science at the turn of the millennium (London: Routledge, 2001).

  • 59

    Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly, eds, Big science: the growth of large-scale research (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992); John Krige, ed., American hegemony and the postwar reconstruction of science in Europe (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006). David Kaiser notes that funding for physics in 1953 was 20 to 25 times greater, controlling for inflation, than it had been in 1938: Cold War requisitions, scientific manpower and the production of American physicists after World War II’, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 33: 1, 2002, p. 132.

  • 60

    On the postwar development of political theory, see Gunnell, The descent of political theory; Hauptman, ‘From accommodation to opposition’; Emily Hauptman, ‘A local history of “the political Political Theory 32: 1, 2004, pp. 3460; Robert Adcock and Mark Bevir, ‘The remaking of political theory’, in Adcock et al., eds, Modern Political Science, pp. 209–34.

  • 61

    Galison, ‘The ontology of the enemy’. See also Andrew Pickering, ‘Cybernetics and the mangle: Ashby, Beer, and Pask’, Social Studies of Science 32: 3, 2002, pp. 41347; Steve J. Heims, John von Neuman and Norbert Wiener: from mathematics to the technologies of life and death (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980); Steve J. Heims, The Cybernetics Group (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Hunter Crowther-Heyck, Herbert A. Simon: the bounds of reason in modern America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005). On rational choice, see also Richard Tuck, Free riding (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008); Amadae, Rationalizing capitalist democracy.

  • 62

    Andrew Pickering, ‘Cyborg history and the WWII regime’, Perspectives in Science 3: 0, 1995, p. 31.

  • 63

    Philip Mirowski, Machine dreams: economics becomes a cyborg science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Galison, ‘The ontology of the enemy’, pp. 254–7.

  • 64

    Galison, ‘The ontology of the enemy’, pp. 231, 261, 264.

  • 65

    Isaac, ‘Tangled loops’.

  • 66

    Peter Galison, Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 783.

  • 67

    David Kaiser, ‘The physics of spin: Sputnik politics and American physicists in the 1950s’, Social Research 73:4, 2006, p. 1225.

  • 68

    Isaac, ‘Tangled loops’; Isaac, Conditions of knowledge.

  • 69

    Cf. Clifford Geertz, ‘The way we think now: toward an ethnography of modern thought’, in Geertz, Local knowledge: further essays in interpretative anthropology (New York: Basic Books, 2000), pp. 156–63. As Galison notes, the turn to ‘local explanations’ (micro-histories) in the history of science is the ‘single most important change in the last thirty years’: Peter Galison, ‘Ten problems in the history and philosophy of science’, Isis 99: 1, 2008, p. 119.

  • 70

    For a Gramscian study of the Trilateral Commission, see Stephen Gill, American hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

  • 71

    Correlates of War Project, ‘Project History’,, accessed Nov. 2008. The project archive is currently housed at Penn State. Cf. Tarak Barkawi, ‘War inside the free world’, in Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, eds, Democracy, liberalism and war: rethinking the democratic peace debates (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001), pp. 107–208.

  • 72

    See esp. the second and third volumes of Foucault's History of sexuality, The uses of pleasure (Harmondsworth: Viking, 1985) and The care of the self (Harmondsworth: Viking, 1988); also Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a way of life: spiritual exercises from Socrates to Foucault, trans. Michael Chase (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995); Alexander Nehemas, The art of living: Socratic reflections from Plato to Foucault (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).

  • 73

    Ian Hunter, ‘The persona of the philosopher and the history of modern philosophy’, Modern Intellectual History 4: 3, 2007, p. 574. See also Conel Condren, Ian Hunter and Stephen Gaukroger, eds, The persona of the philosopher in early modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Ian Hunter, ‘The history of theory’, Critical Inquiry 33: 1, 2006, pp. 78112; and the exchange between Hunter and Fredric Jameson in Critical Inquiry 34: 3, 2008, pp. 56359.

  • 74

    Hunter, ‘The persona of the philosopher’, p. 574; Ian Hunter, ‘Talking about my generation’, Critical Inquiry 34: 3, 2008, p. 586.

  • 75

    Cited in Guilhot, ‘One discipline, many histories’.

  • 76

    Bruno Latour, ‘Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern’, Critical Inquiry 30: 2, 2004, p. 227.

  • 77

    I borrow the term ‘radical historicist’ from Mark Bevir, ‘Political studies as narrative and science, 1880–1980′, Political Studies 54: 0, 2006, pp. 583606.

  • 78

    Robert Poole, Earthrise: how man first saw the Earth (London: Yale University Press, 2008).