Transcripts For CSPAN3 Emotion In Foreign Policy 20170722

Two very provocative and extremely influential articles that were written by frank castiglione. The first appeared in the 1997 issue of the journal of American History. And the second appeared just last year in 2016 in the same journal. These penetrating deal with George Kennan , soviet russia and the cold war. s longknow that kennan telegram, which was sent in february 1946 from moscow to xshington and his socalled article the following year that appeared in the journal of Foreign Affairs these two pieces of writing embodied the core, the very core of u. S. Containment policy for the cold war. Documents that frank focuses on and extrapolates from. Important bothe substantively and methodologically. Reexamines, he kennans motives and thinking. In so doing, he makes a major methodological contribution. He injects a motion a major factor for us to think about that emotion injects emotion as a major factor press to think about, rather than the rational realist, frank portrays kennan in all of his humanity. Rational . Yes. Anxious,insecure, and fearfulfearful of seeming fearful. Us toes us, frank urges ponder the intersection of emotion and reason. The intersection of sensibility and rationality. ,ow, to discuss these matters we have three major scholars who have been deeply influenced by franks writings. The first commentator will be , the charles dana professor of history at colgate. Andy is a former president of schaeffer. Extensively on u. S. Relations with south asia and with southeast asia. Hes published a very interesting book on hiroshima, the worlds bomb, published by oxford press in 2008 and for approximately the last decade, and he has been writing a major book dealing with two empires and five senses, the u. S. Empire in the philippines and the british experience in india. The second speaker will be petra goedde, an associate professor at Temple University and the director of the center of humanities at temple. Shes written extensively about gender, culture and International Relations. Shes best known for her book on gis in germany and gis and germans in the late 1940s. Petra is also the editor of a really trusting book on human rights and the cold war. Shes now finishing a major volume dealing with discourses of peace during the cold war. Our third speaker will be barbara keyes, an associate professor of history at the university of melbourne in australia. Barbara has written two major books, both published by harvard press, one entitled globalizing and the second one, reclaiming american virtue. Ara is now working on a book on Henry Kissinger from a book strongly influenced by franks work. Frankst speaker will be hes the former president of this organization. He is currently the board of trustees distinguished professor at the university of connecticut. Many of the most prestigious fellowships, including one from the institute of advanced studies at princeton , one from the nobel peace ,nstitute and one from the neh among many others. Frank is one of the most important historians working on the history of American Foreign policy. I just want to take a few minutes to summarize franks scholarly trajectory. Made therians have type of journey that frank has made. Wasks first book am a calle published by Cornell Press in 1984. This was a book that helped to revamp thinking about American Foreignpolicy in the 1920s. Extremely, deeply researched and economic and financial papers and frank showed in this volume the immense involvement of United States in European Affairs in what had previously been thought of as an isolationist europe. As part of this book and what has been regarded as his most interesting part, frank illuminated americas cultural influence in europe in the 1920s, a subject that had been rarely explored until that time. This began franks engagement with the cultural turn and historical writing in the 1990s. Franks deep knowledge of the theoretical literature on culture, gender, language and rhetoric shaped many of the most meaningful insights in a book he published in 1992 dealing with u. S. French relations in the aftermath of world war ii. Have achieved the depth of understanding of the theoretical literature as has frank. He after finishing this book on francoAmerican Relations and the cold war era then spend close to 15 years writing articles and essays and working on what became an awardwinning book called roosevelts lost alliances. This volume, as many of you here know, reassessed the American Relations with soviet russia during world war ii and during the first months after world war ii. Employing truly painstaking research and using new insights from political, psychology and cognitive theory, frank forced ofy of us to rethink some the most fundamental beliefs, some of our most fundamental ideas about allied diplomacy during and immediately after world war ii. Since writing that awardwinning book, frank has edited the kennan diaries. This volume was published in 2015 and it won yet additional awards. Provided frank a unique opportunity to rethink and expand upon his views that he had first presented in his very controversial 1997 article in the journal of American History. Unceasinge called. Essure for penetration in todays session, we will discuss both franks 1997 article and his 2016 reassessment of kennan. In so doing, we hope to address thebstantive and role of emotion in the making of American Foreignpolicy. Do this, our first speaker will be andy best to do this come out first speaker will be andy to do this, our first speaker will be andy. [applause] thank you. Thanks to everyone here. Part an origin story. I was a bit player in the very beginning of franks 1997 article. On july 3, 1995, i received from the journal of American History, from the editor of the journal, a request to read and evaluate a submission that was then titled unceasing pressure for penetration. I found the title irresistible and readily agreed to do the review. I still remember the excitement i felt as i read the piece. Its one of those moments where you feel like parts of your brain that you didnt know existed suddenly coming online. There were all these things that i had vaguely imagined in the world of u. S. Foreign relations but had never been able to articulate. And there they were in this piece. I didnt know who had written the essay. I knew i wanted to know the person who had written it. Tolde end of my report, i the editor on would be delighted tohave my identity disclosed the author. That is an option. I wanted to start a conversation with whoever the author was. That he or she would then get in touch with me. The essay made the case for the importance of language in understanding diplomacy. s used its example, kennan famous long telegram of 1946, well known as the long telegram neither it nor kennans of the writing had been properly analyzed. Strategies for containment had been published 30 years before and had populated t filibuster throughout academia. Of kennan had been published in 1989. O was publishedi in 1990. Was ine authors kennan good part on recognizable. For here was an emotional george who clearlyan fo felt a great deal. He loved the russian people, he loathed the soviet government. Expressedg frustration kennans language was emotional and gendered. Polarity or a a binary opposition between the United States and the soviet union. Monstrouslynion was masculine. How else to read his rendering as insistent, unceasing pressure for penetration and command . His rhetoric represented as reasonable the worldview that was in fact deeply anxious and emotionally fraught. On that basis, it appealed to policymakers in washington who wished for clarity in their understanding of soviet behavior. In my report, i praised the piece. I called it fascinating, provocative and an effective counterweight to get us ins interpretation of gaddis ons interpretation of the telegram. It he contrasted with russian deaths feared a weak response to the soviet challenge here was an insight that emphasized the ways in which our contemplation of the self inevitably leads to our constitution of the other. The piece of elaborate it beautifully on the work of emily rosenberg, especially. I expressed hope in the end that the article would be published. I did have some suggestions. There seemed to be a lot of smoke clearing in the essay. While it was necessary to introduce readers to new ways of thinking about iconic characters and texts, there was too much of this. After the first paragraph, it the author 20 pages to get back to the long telegram. Some of what the author claimed was gender to me. I felt some of the application of the concept nevertheless in precise. The degree of intentionality in kennans use of language seemed to me vague. Was kennan perhaps subconsciously immured in the gender and pathology like his audience . Authors attempt to weigh the difference between conjecture in reality i thought not especially compelling. se discussion of kennan racialized view of the soviets was underdeveloped and a few sentences about the walnut trees on his pennsylvania farm left me bemused none of this reduced my admiration for the boldest ambition incher intellectual counter power of the essay. Unceasing pressure was published in the journal in march of 1997. It was considerably revised. Monstrosity and reality had been replaced by pathology and emotion in the title. The context provided was leaner and it was less introductory throat clearing and emotional wondering about. His walnut trees had vanished. The piece stuck to gender and raceon put you much let ango. It provided much more in the way of background on kennans identification of the russian people. He explored kennans first were of the American Embassy in moscow. The sexual longings and escapades of these and other Embassy Officials anticipated franks account of world war ii in Chapter Eight of roosevelts lost alliances. The article also recounted a year afterkdown arriving in moscow and noted his influence the article was more resolutely chronological than the draft, which made it easier to read and absorb. With all of its improvements, i found after reading it that i missed in some ways the relative shakiness of the original submission, the greater speculation and boldness of its forays into language, psychology and emotion. Someday, i hope frank will publish that to mission submission as a directors cut volume. For years, i taught the essay its legacy seemed to be multiple. Along with emily rosenberg, to someserious extent, borrowed insights from cultural studies. This requires familiarity with another and very different body of literature and little selective reading. Frank never abandoned deep and wide archival research. And even more fully on display in the lost alliances book and franks more recent work on kennan. Whatever direction the field takes, i hope and trust we will not lose the dedication to primary source evidence that franks writing shows. Second, frank taught us the importance of language, reading for meaning. Noted the long telegram was over 5500 words containing mention of only two names. Lenin once in passing and stalin, quoted once and mentioned twice. The threat of the United States faced was not human, but a machine or a force. Kennan used the subjunctive and passive voice, thereby both concealing agency and magnifying the imaginative threat. Language triggers a motion. Franks contribution to the it is language that gets us to emotion. Allows us to uncover it. Without getting into the deep weeds, frank has made us notice that. Finally, like all the best history, unceasing pressure leaves us with questions to ponder. Moreoften asked him to be forthcoming about kennans freud ism. Kennan urged his official biographer to use freudian theory when writing about him. Gattis decline. Psychoanalyze a man who seems to have analyzed himself in freudian terms, even while they reject the key principles . Are. Lusive emotions the words with which they are expressed can reveal much about the emotions of the person who wrote or spoke them. We can mistake bursts of anger with longstanding animosity and to which a document like the long telegram arrived. Frank considered this issue more fully in his submission, writing about the navy secretarys reception. Most of that is gone in the article. Are there times when emotion matters less than it does when analyzing George Kennan . Tomentators have pointed george w. Bushs saying of Saddam Hussein that he tried to kill my daddy. Angerent that presupposes bush was followed by the drama obama who seemed to go to some lengths to avoid emotional decisionmaking. As my ownears come interests have shifted toward a culture list interpretation ive often asked myself when culture matters less than something else. Or when perhaps it doesnt matter at all. I wonder if we are ready to ask the same of emotions in the study of history. [applause] its a great pleasure and a great honor to be part of this panel of this roundtable, because franks work, frankly, has meant a lot to me over the years. I dont exactly recall when i first read franks article. It might happen when it first came out, but more than likely it was not when i think back to what i was doing in the spring of 1997, i think it was a little later. I do recall the excitement upon reading it. It both validated what i had been trying to do in my own dissertation and pushed my thinking in new directions. I was at the time in the middle of revising my dissertation for publication and i was struggling to make my own argument about the importance of gender relations relevant to the larger field of history. Here was a Senior Historian who wrote about one of the key figures in the history of the cold war and one of the key tests in Foreign Relations history in a dramatic new way. He did so by using cultural and gender analysis. Only much later did i realize on rereading it very recently that he also engaged with emotions at the time no one knew about this ara will talk more about this later in her presentation. Frank was part of a growing cohort of scholars who engaged seriously with cultural and added gender to the research agenda. He was not the first to do so. Akira had written about culture and power since the 1970s, but did not include gender in his approach. Amalie rosenberg already published on gender and relations in various journals, most significantly in diplomatic history in 1994. Her article was part of a forum on culture, gender and Foreign Relations. Praise andh criticism. Criticism particularly from bruce, who confessed in his commentary to being an intransigent revisionist pickup his argument was the following. Rosenberg and laura, who wrote the other two original had nice things to say about how gender played out in the domestic reception of American Foreignpolicy, but they failed to convince that all this actually mattered for the conduct of Foreign Policy oy. , hee his criticism stung did lay out an important challenge to those of us who work in the field of cultural Foreign Relations. This has direct relevance for franks article. Culture study needs to do Serious Research to be more than a trick. Could not the emphasis on mail was possibility be enriched if we could show the peculiar sense of mail was possibility that eventually is the Business Value of American Civilization . Why not try a study that would and domestic life otherwise men, showing how their lives might be related to their policy . Could we not investigate the internationalism of eleanor and frank when roosevelt and link it to their troubled marriage . George f kennan displayed a brooding antidemocratic personal life. Were these characteristics related to his diplomacy . His challenge pointed to an important disconnect that still existed between the political and cultural subfields in diplomatic history. Mainly that those of us who seriously emerge are immerse ourselves in the cultural approach were often content with examining the discourse that showed how International Relations were embedded in notions of cultural difference. What he demanded was that they produce concrete evidence that this discourse mattered. , soft rhetoric of cultural gender needed to enter into some kind of relationship with power politics. Whether hisd frank article was actually a direct response to that. It seemed like all of his work , seeming to kennan be a direct response to this. He addressed the criticism by showing how kennans personal life, his emotional attachment to the russian people come his experience at the American Embassy in moscow between 1934 in 1937 colored his thinking 1937 colored his most code word document named the containment. Ofle they went outside trove the vladek archives, we searched archives, film. Frank went straight to the heart of the political archives. He showed us how to approach a ssic text with the news with the new tools of cultural and gender analysis. How to emerge with a new fresh interpretation. Let me go into a little bit detail about what we knew about his approach. Is a person political, which a lot of gender historians were writing about, but the political is personal. Frank provided the missing link that forced historians to take culture and gender seriously. It provided culture with a causal connection. This means in the cultural context. I want to start with a thesis and map out how to yet save proved that thesis. Argues that his language, particularly his troops of gender and pathology created an emotional life context in which his exaggerated depiction of the soviet threat is national and credible. Making containment, a policy that already had strong support in the truman administration, seen the only realistic come healthfully, and manly approach. Two variations of the main iesis is how carefully want to conclude the emotional context. He is interested in the context in which the assessment unfolded. That is what cultural history does. That is why political historians have had so much trouble with it. Document alike to single causeandeffect kind of history. History does not unfold along these straight trajectories. And a signal a single explanation is really is rarely ever sufficient. Where does frank locate the evidence in support of this . What makes it moved beyond it being a trick . Look at the evidence in two places. The first is hidden in plain sight. His choice of words, his metaphors. Some this is some have been steeped in this language and thought nothing of it. To his style of writing and no other significance. But lacked the tools to analyze it. Put alls the first of these pieces together. He drew only three that cultural anthropologists and theorists to drop water conclusions of the russians. The other piece of evidence what he called the product of graphical evidence. Relationship, diaries and the cultural and social environment which shape his worldview. The sources help establish the emotional context in which he develops his political views. He examined some of the standard that the manic sources and combines that with new evidence. Beginning in the late 1990s, a whole code word of oaks appeared. I mentioned a few in passing. Fighting for american manhood. Imperial brotherhood. My own book. And radicals on the road. International orientalism and feminism during the international era. Thesees represent studies explore this gender representation policy. It shows how foreign is culturally constructed and reproduced. That brings me to the significance of his argument. What historians have identified for a long time as realist policymaking is built on an emotional foundation. Can an emotional sis emotional assessment deliver what we still commonly identify as a realist policy . Itnk himself articulated best in his article. There is no better way for me to put it. Although grounded in rational expertise shaved by emotion, this centralized attachment to the russian people and antipathy to the soviet government and alienation from american society. He concludes an observation that brought the flexibility for where the scholarship is today. There is no better way to conclude my top then your word for borrowing them. It begins with the observation that causes other historical events in the situation, such as the cold war. Not all aspects of such causes are attributed to single agents or conscious intentions. Although never absolute causal effect. Turnss the key that he emotional context into a cost. There is no better way to put this and i will end right here. Thank you. I would like to begin echoing what she said about franks career. I think frank has been consistently one of the most innovative and original thinkers in our field. One measure of that is the intensity of the reaction his work has invoked among us. Thread innded me of a 1997 that was a response both to the journal of American History article and the diplomatic history article in the nuclear family. This is a huge threat for those all of our panelists were excited and energized. The 1997 motivated by article. Perhaps even more people were outraged, annoyed, frustrated. We title the panel unceasing in honor of the 1997 article. We could also have panel with relation to the second journal of American History. 2016. Re recent one from i react intensely to it. Historians react intensely to every thing. Do two thingso with my short time here. Talk about the second article and look at that trajectory. A lot of articles cover the same terrain. I want to talk about the intensity of the reactions that frank had proms it across his career. The 1997 article is worth remembering it is written without access more than a tiny part of canons papers. Only in 2009. It is worth pointing out frank was able to reconstruct so much. Just on the basis of other sources. My diaries, not letters. The second article does have full access to the papers. 1933 in 1958. Territory that is to historians of nonAmerican Foreign relations. Pain, fury,tes of then to see, passion, heartbreak, guilt, eroticism, and trauma. Nots and concepts we dont that we dont normally associate with what we like to think of as the dry world of diplomacy. I dont think frank has fundamentally revised his thesis. The long telegram is here in the second article. Reaction to of much the ground. To what frank calls like frankg impulses to desire the connection with people. Construct an entire theory about the way they made sense of the world. Frank has been immersed in canons papers. Has immersedfrank himself in an explosion of literature and psychology of other fields. , he had a article distinctive set of modes of cognition. Analysis, century perception, immersive engagement. It was cut off with the contact in russian culture. He became frustrated. Frank tells it that canon was heartbroken. A frustration pushed him over the longterm policies. You can the only way see a possible way to reconnect in the future. Frank is positing even more strongly than in the article. Behindsonal motivations policy recommendations. I think the first article had two arguments. The longn infused telegram with strategies that were emotional in order to persuade people. He had infused the long telegram with emotional and rhetorical strategies. That first article had a second that was less emphasized but perhaps even more radical, which was that can then s experience had shaped the way that he wrote that long telegram. Frank makes it very clear. Positing is a radical new account of the origin of the development of the cold war. Hurt as personal explanatory as political calculation. Article thatsecond is perhaps and i would like to know what frank would say about this, very specific to canon. The way can it made sense of the world that would not be applicable to policymakers in general. The claim is that it and lived experience matter to the weight policymakers make policy. Frank has developed with this immersion in papers and able to develop a very deep sense as an individual and how an individual is that individuals particular brainwork. I want to turn to why i cant cover all the reasons why, but some of the reasons why emotions mattered in International Relations. Of an analysis of the kennedy assassination. In my mind he makes a compelling sink make a compelling case that the conspiracy theories are that they fester because of the disparity between smallness of the troops of the truth, which is that some loser individual shot kennedy, and the greatness of the act that a beloved president was killed. Psychologically we create an grandiosen that is as as the end result. We certainly could be Something Like that for the cold war. We want good reasons for it. We prefer deposit grand causes for grand events. Into seminal articles and many others and a book that mill referenced, roosevelt personal politics start of the cold war. Frank is offering a very uncomfortable explanation of the origins of the cold war. It is not that policymakers simply and solely observed them in realities, thoughtfully took courses them, of action best suited to advance the National Interest area sometimes mistakenly based on misperception. Frank is telling instead choices were made for reasons that appeared petty and demeaning. It is an inversion in which the insignificance on a with scale have come up influence, strategy, policy, world events. Frank cannon seems uncomfortably like trump. All policymakers are like canon. They have emotions. Even no drum obama had emotions, he just express them in the same way. Trump is influenced by emotions because they are so vividly on display. In fact if we dig deeply we would find this to be true of evenolicymakers, rationalists. I want to thank you for your patience of people in this room. Also thinks people for coming this morning. It seems like we are talking about someone elses article here. Im humbled and deeply appreciate of of the comments. I want to thank the people on this panel for organizing it. Also andy, who computed a lot. It wasnt a small amount. He did a lot to inform the and a lotof analysis of that had to do with andy roddick. Receiving actually the comments that the journal of American History says. I remember reading it. I also want to thank one of the commentators for the journal. But it is a left larry and intensity. Letter critiquing with a lot of useful suggestions. How it really fit into the of american policy . His work has been an inspiration for me since the publication of that article. I also want to think lloyd gardner. In his essay architects of the firstas one of persons to really challenge his view of himself as the all all objective interpreter of Foreign Policy. His ambition was also very influential. The origins of the long telegram withghout his career, sausage which can over the last was a person with enormous talent. That is a first point of thanks. It was written in 199495 and in the midst of the culture wars. In history departments around the country, many were torn. Culture versus politics. New people versus older people. And our own field is kind of torn. Things that other people in the panel and the room does come it shows culture and politics are all of them involve emotion. The mostt mention quotable frame in that article. The intellectual equivalent of junk food. The third point i want to make , and andy mentioned this, i a disappointment. Stable. A our culture is very important. People have not picked up on implementing in their own words ofh a close reading rhetorical analysis, literary criticism. Article inside an example of literary critical analysis. People talk about the importance of language but people are not they use it very much in their work. One reason is personal and difficult. Mel mentioned an article published in 1997. That was a 15 year period. It was a 20 year period between the french book and 20 years. 20 years between books and one reason for that is i found in writing the 1997 article, the incredible utility of close reading in terms of unpacking language. Im looking at the wealth of evidence, the wealth of information, historical evidence in phraseology. Powerfuln incredibly methodology. Is it took me so long with that roosevelt book. If you unpacked all of the meetings in a sentence or phrase or paragraph, then you have a fit of data, but how do you that lump of analysis into narratives . And if you have a huge lump of , hows it going to move the stories over the course of these narratives . When i finally did with the roosevelt book is hitching some of that analysis to be metanarrative world war ii policy. Times,ory told many different ways. You need both. Looking at some examples of , looking at a particularly interesting , you look at facets. You are examining it from every different perspective and you see the different parts they see the different ways the parts connect. Really not the minute if evidence. That is valuable information. The fourth comment i will make is striking to me, my limitations, how basic ideas have changed. They were available to historians. 30 boxes being open. I looked at my ideas have not changed very much. Theres a lot of consistency. More consistency on basic impulses. Even the contradictions have a thosetency for many of absolvections themselves over a period of time. And he always asks the tough questions. Sexuality, there was an errant struggle between civilizations and the humans. Freudian terms and methodologies and notions. I wouldnt venture to use those terms in my analysis. One of the ways they are elusive is a conundrum. Emotions are in artificial construct. Our brains deal with processing that is emotional and rational. It is incredibly complex and dividing inking into emotional reasoning as rational reading rational reasoning is an artificial construct. Most of our historians regarded it as rational. The stakes between emotion and reason is something we have had in western civilization. Other cultures dont separate out what we call emotion. Thats how it occurs, holistically. S a dilemma because emotions are integral. They really are integrated from the beginning. Et al. I understand it. , certainly this is a person less thought about thesequences consequences of his life and career of appearing as an angry black man. History in america shows thats dangerous. I think that is reflective in his defensive strategy. Certainly there are emotional impulses there. Petra talked about the context of the 1990s. Think bruce was kind of a curmudgeon. A these young whippersnappers were not being serious in their analysis. He vastly underestimated the intellectual integrity of the people. A very important question, how applicable is this methodology . I think it is applicable. We thought of it as a very austere kind of person. What about other americans who are involved . I think there is a way in which Many Americans involved in , his work a moment in terms ofe americans involved in russia. Herrmann went to russia as ambassador in 1943. He has installed a special one for him and one for molotov. We should take trips together, we should take trips together. Nd visit and we can go in my place and there is a punk here for you and a funk here for me. This idea there was going to be a special kind of relationship area he would be the gobetween. The discussion in a 1997 article between him and stalin. Obamas ambassador to russia could have a special in one ofip area those countries it appears as a place where a americans can interact with leaders, interact with people in a place with Continental Divide and universal aspirations. We should have some kind of emotion for something. A group of historians present with kind of evidence. In the number of historical figures, people involved in American Foreignpolicy. I think there is an awful a lot there. Policymakers are people. They bring into their business, their dreams, their aspirations. Involved, how important is early life and his emotional life and frustrations. That doesnt mean they determined the policy but influenced his approach to policy. I think that was a terrific introduction to what i hope would be a more provocative discussion. This is being presented on cspan. , please raise your hand speak into the microphone. There were millions out there engaged with thinking about two journal of American History articles. Why is this focus on canon so important . The father of the containment kennan wrotee obviously the most influential book. Summing so many people read 70se 50s and 60s and that we often assign a little book of electors given at the university of chicago. The key theme of that book is that america and the been emotional. American policy has been emotional. We need to stop letting our emotions and domestic politics shape policy and we need to have a rational approach. The irony is this person, who was championing a rational approach policy was, as frank describes him, often influenced by his own emotional press collections emotional predilections. I am the most reasonable person you can think of. The American People should follow what i have to say because im basing my policy prescriptions on the basis of rational assessments of issues. Important thing to think about, when we actually betweenh alleged binary realism and nonrealism and make you Foreign Policy. Making foreignin policy. Heart of the theory is the role of emotion. Oft is the a sick axiom realist thinking . The basic axiom is nations exist , andworld of anarchy anarchy produces fear. Withymakers have to deal fear they have experienced about their own nations survival. Response tolicy in their perception of threat is probably a mixture of ot motion of the emotion and reason. This is the major point that i frank is urging us to grapple with. The fact that these two elements are always at work in the way that we think about things and the way we handle issues. With that effort to present some type of framework to some of the larger discussion here, i invite questions to any of the panelist s, to frank in particular, whose work has shaped so much of what we think about American Foreign policy. Introduce yourself, tell us who you are and make your content. Your comment. Summits a make a comment or question. Im an associate professor of history. I was franks student. That one thing i found that really reand forces more and more of what frank was talking about is by looking at what you novelists antisoviet that come from very powerful in their work. The soviet system alienated large numbers of their own citizens from elements of russian culture, russian traditions. Because of a thing that happened in 1917 was treason. I see when candidates are going like they areems going into a similar alien nation. That comes through with a lot of the criticism of the soviet system. I was wondering if frank comment on that. That the very good observation. One of the aspects of canons not of all things russian, just the russian language but russian history and russian literature. And pre1917 he wrote almost every major russian he write the russian french norwegian literature. He taught himself these languages as an adult. Going up speaking russian or even german. She certainly emphasized with the feelings of the russian himself inregarded this tragic triangle of the russian people we often portray as this beautiful lady. The cruel gentleman in the kremlin who control this beautiful lady and seen as a real suitor. Andrew johnson. Have two or three quick questions. In literature and emotion im curious. Any distinction between the two in dealing with that . Historianserialist later when criticizing the cultural term focused on the decoupledich emotion the Political Economic from connectivity and foreignpolicy. Im wondering how your concept of emotion engages with the , looking at the vast forces of the 20th century and the second industrial revolution. And third im wondering if you, if anyone could perhaps comment on, or if you want to comment on the press would love to talk andt rationalist realism emotion. In the tradition of the of goingof diplomacy back to the progressive era of expert knowledge, that there was an attempt across the atlantic to try to harnessed part is social sciences with the best policy and diplomacy of emotion. Whether that is one of the things that fit into the intellectual trajectory. First of all the journal of emotional review pulled psychologist and philosophers who study emotion to try to arrive each at a definition. Heres the thing. Some writers say to texas basic feeling and other say cultural expression. Feeling and a basic others say it is a cultural expression. Resentment, pride, humiliation, these are emotional. They engage feelings, often deeply. It is not the case that the idea five andemotions are seven you see the problem and you try to pin down those numbers. It is sufficient to think about certain kinds of brain processing as emotional. That is as far as i would get involved. I think in terms of political , i would never argue emotional determinism. Emotions he falls how we perceive. This is where the one telegram came in. When you have an analysis of political economy. They were being a policy maker or a scholar or whoever. You are using people will use because thatuments is what persuades. What were talking about here is not emotion is separate from the other realms for understanding the world around us. That is part of the response. In the construction cultural assumptions. Out somey to separate alleged purity of politics and rationality separate, the scholarly not how concerns manifest themselves. There are trends of one society emphasize emotion. You think of generally in the 1940s, late 1940s the perception of the United States and other countries is that are very much involved in the success of fascism. To move away from the emotionalism because it could give rise to fascism by having a social scientific analysis of a french problem. A containment overenthusiastic expansionism. Containment is also tamping emotions. This discussion of what is is almostand rational every discussion. Its something they keep returning to over and over again. How compatible do you find it to be . With transnational and global returns. I ask for a couple of reasons. That type of history and structures through metro through macrolevel policy. Humans butt involves n emotion out, theyointed detect emotional to meaning its a very demanding time and in the historys of particular places in the moment. View of a large this kind of method moving forward and a moment where we are trying to cross borders. Its a good question. I just wrote an article on that. The interesting thing is the way transnational history is fundamentally different. In the United States the cultural term had a lot to do with how the transnational term evolved. It was the sources that the cultural term allowed us. Former relations history and diplomatic history. Basicallyltural term looked at the border areas. As International Relations and that leads to the national term. Instead of coming full circle, we are coming back to economics. Economic organizations and much power in transnational relations. And now we are circling back to economic and political history. A lot more opportunities to actually bring this perceived of the 1990s back to the much more diverse and interesting way of International Relations. There is an anthropology of these flows. For example spice trade. People have a very powerful sensory affective emotional content. They are changing european food. They are interested in more spices. They are powerfully emotional. The presence of people, the flow of people. A deep sensory and emotional in ways. The difficulty is the translation and how do you know how others are perceiving their role in various acts of transmission. If we are getting of his relationships from both directions, its not easy to do. You are looking at transnational relations. Looking at larger processes. How do you categorize . You categorize the various forces, players, elements, and the analysis. A huge amount of interpretation involved. The other thing is transnational relations are also the work of with a plane crash. At any case transnational history involves human beings. Any aspect that involves human reactions. Something that we were talking about. Something that all of our panelists have pointed out. Totorians react intensely things. Im wondering if you can and howe on historians we account for our deep responses and what we are engaging in. And think about that as it affects the ways we may read ion out of various it is a very important point. I think people have an emotional and philosophers and historians have reaction to the motion. I think that is really key. Im obviously an emotional person. I tend to see that as being important. Yeah, selfawareness is important. But you think about the various x, y, and z,bjects they often have a reason for studying it in the first place. ,ne definition of emotion things have emotional value when they are important to you. Thats that naturally goes together. I just want to add that if we are passionate about our projects. Whether we hate the people we write about or we want to be like the people we write about, there is passion involved, and that makes for better history, i think. [indiscernible] see whether there is room for emotion in japan. The reason was japan was power becomed, which could reinstated as a strong power center useful for containment. The japanese also preach this, even to today. Reason [indiscernible] enner had a factbased story about japan. Open door was too demanding and not realistic. He had a racial view toward the chinese as needing to be punished. His view about korea was very much despised. It should be deserving of abandonment. , did you see any emotional factor that affected kenners view toward japan . I cannot find much when it comes to japan and other asian countries. You know more about this than i do. I think i focused more on kenner in russia and cantor in europe. Kennan was a racist in many ways. He was not optimistic about people changing, or immigrants being able to adopt american values. Askind of regarded people their ethnic background would determine their perspectives on various things. Positive judgments about japan, negative judgments about china, and he had certainly emotional subjective viewpoints toward most countries in the world, positively or negatively. The best thing was to come from a country at the rim of the. Orth sea that was the best of all circumstances, especially if you wanted to develop wanted a developed democracy. I want to followup on that because i think you raise an important issue, and franks comments sort of inspired me to raise the following issue. Rather than necessarily seeing kennan in racist terms or in ethnic terms, i think a case could be made that kennans approach to east asia, his , andach to china and korea alternatively japan, were very much influenced by the way he calculated power relationships. Those power relationships were somewhat inflected by racial considerations, but they also had an enormous amount to do with his own assessments of economic capabilities, physical power, longterm military capabilities. His preoccupation was really to integrate he was very concerned with japan. He often talked about japan and germany being the two Critical Issues in terms of the way the cold or would play out over time. The essence was to integrate western germany and japan into an americanled sphere, and he did not regard korea and china as important because you regarded korea as weak and china hopeless and caught up in civil war. Se comments simply are frank, to ask you a question, the people who write about the who areof the cold war not inclined to put much emphasis on race and culture, they focus on kennans other writings, which you in these two articles pay not much attention to. On kennansy focus famous lectures at the National War College, and they focus on influential policy planning staff papers that he wrote in 1948 and 1949 in which are arguably as important in as the xshaping policy article or the telegram. Because the papers in the National War College were efforts by kennan to shake the policy. My question is this, how do you how should we think about the relationship between the issues you write about and the thatials and documents containment were based upon . How do we link these two things together . Containment were based upon . Thats a good question. I would agree that kennans view is based on analyses of power. I have not gone through in detail the policy planning staff memos. His i have gone through most of the lectures he delivered at the National War College in 1946 and 1947. Those in body material that historians have used, but also material that would support the arguments i have made. After the q a in one of those kennan would say revealing things that indicated his analysis was based more on rational objective analysis of policy considerations. Those lectures, kennan was asked to prepare at the last minute, and he did not have a chance to write stuff down ahead of time, so he just spoke. He has amazing statements about how she has been how he has been forced in the last 20 years americans for russian eyes. Ventriloquist i quizes his vision for american society. To become more of a collectivized, focused society, the kind of thing kennedy has been arguing for. In terms of the evidence, those National Work college lectures, those were various kinds of concerns. There say that i imagine in policy planning staff papers, this also this is the thing about history, ok . You ask different questions in the past and you get different answers. You can look at the same document and usts kinds of questions, you get these kinds of answers. It depends on the focus. What i would like to do is make it a real work that integrates various aspects of cannons s concerns and various aspects of his perspective. I think we have time for one more question. Frank, you mentioned that you had difficulty figuring out how to organize all this information. I was wondering if any of you constructk to how to these narratives, especially when you have jumbled information, and are trying to establish context that does not always fit into a linear narrative of cause and effect. Gosh, thanks, guys. It is difficult to do. Havently had my year in my ear the advice of many people. I have to generating narrative argument in my work. I accept that. Is, how do you put it all in motion, how do you show change over time . I think frank did well in the roosevelt book. I think he, to some extent, of the the valence analytical apparatus and put it in the service of his narrative. He does have a car on a logical he does have a chronological narrative, but the themes play out. Roosevelts small group of advisers and the emotional bonds. Ween them between them i have not been able to get to that in a couple of things i have been working on, so what i have done most recently, to see if it is going to be successful, is to try to generate narrative momentum at the beginning, then admit that my chapters are going to be largely thematic. As much as possible, i will try to move the narrative along chronologically, but thats not always easy to do when you are dealing with categories like race, gender, religion, thinking about maturity, or the categories i am now using, which are the categories of the five senses. I want to give those senses a featured role in the book. How do you put distances the . Enses in motion you start by saying they are in motion, and then you treat them as a chapter, and then you reestablish the narrative arc and come to some kind of conclusion about changed over time. T is a hard thing to do i think generally there is a good deal of sympathy in the Reading Community for this sort of thing. Its not the same as the sort of thing you want to be doing with your dissertations, if thats what you are asking. I would not try this in your dissertation. But it seems to be workable. I think franks is probably it. Er if you can get to prof. Costigliola as your advisor, i would suggest that [laughter] prof. Costigliola it. You have a great chronology. You should stick with it. I would like to end this panel on a personal note. Frank and i have been close colleagues for about 45 years, ever since we began writing, both of us have the same time, the early 1920s. Frank was the ga of my younger brother at cornell, and thats how we came in contact with one another. His work has had an enormous influence not only on the profession, but for me and mylly, his work interactions with him have been some of the most important and determines to and determinative in my personal career. I think what is distinctive about franks work and why we are having a panel on his work today is that he does three things that all of us should really try to emulate. Historians nowadays is immersed as deeply as he in archival work. If you read roosevelts lost alliances carefully, you will be amazed at the detail of his research, painstaking, thoughtful, and a multitude of sources. Careful, Meticulous Research is what has characterized franks whole career. Only the other thing that makes his work so remarkable is who writef Us International history and the history of Foreign Relations have learned as much and communicated as effectively theoretical ideas about culture, identity, andc andion, combining theory painstaking Race Research are really the defining aspect of franks career as an historian. But he does one other thing, and theory andhas used addressus research to critical questions in the history of International Relations, and that was, what was americas role in the 1920s, how did the United States interact with a key ally like france, what were the causes of the cold war, and how do we understand the trajectory of the cold war . He has asked important, significant questions and has brought theory and research to bear upon them. Thisis why we have had panel today, and thats why i think we all are as indebted as we are to franks scholarship. Thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer join us sunday for an American History tv special, the detroit riots 50th anniversary. Heather Graham Thompson of the university of michigan and Detroit Free Press Editorial Page Editor stephen henderson. Eastern, a former Detroit Police chief and former Detroit Free Press journalist. Riots 50throit anniversary, live sunday at noon eastern on cspan3. 50 years ago, the 1967 detroit riots began, ignited by longsimmering racial tensions. This week on the sidebar podcast, a look at what happened with the principal domestic to president lyndon b. Johnson. You can find the sidebar and every cspan podcast on the free cspan radio app for apple and android, as well as google play. Tune in. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1970 nine, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies, and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Year marks the 150th anniversary of the Senate Appropriations committee. Next, betty koed reflects on the committees history. Senators thad cochran and Patrick Leahy also speak at the program. Held in the kennedy Congress Room on capitol hill, this is about 40 minutes. Everyone. Ening, i am a trustee of the u. S. Capital historical society. Welcome to our celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Senate Committee on appropriations. This committee traces its origins