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 d