Home 3. Post-revisionism
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

3. Post-revisionism

View more publications by Edinburgh University Press
To Publisher Page
Cold War US Foreign Policy
This chapter is in the book Cold War US Foreign Policy
threePost-revisionismAccording to John Lewis Gaddis, the initial hope of post-revisionistscholars was that `if only we could take the strongest elements of thesetwo previous approaches [orthodoxy and revisionism], discard the weakerones, and ground the whole thing as much as possible in whatever archiveswere available, then truth would emerge'.1In this comment Gaddis capturescertain characteristic elements of post-revisionism, and above all its desire forsynthesis. Writing initially in the less febrile atmosphere of the 1970s, manypost-revisionists saw themselves as consciously avoiding the ideologicalperspectives and one-sided judgements of traditionalists and revisionists infavour of an `objective' approach that would dispassionately identify all therelevant causal factors and integrate them into an overarching explanation ofevents. In contrast to the simplistic and reductionist arguments of thehistorians of the 1950s and 1960s, post-revisionists would stress complexityand multi-causality in their explanations of American foreign policy. And,with new archival material appearing all the time, they would have theopportunity finally to ground their arguments in solid empirical evidence andthus to put an end to the arguments over who started the Cold War.That, at least, was how many post-revisionists saw it. Others would argue,with some justification, that, rather than an attempt to build a synthesis fromthe best elements of both previous interpretations, post-revisionist accountswere often an attempt to justify the broad conclusions of traditionalism whileneutralizing those of revisionism. Certainly, the characteristic method of post-revisionism in dealing with revisionist arguments is a `yes, but' formula thatconsists of accepting the broad contention of the revisionists but reinterpret-ing its meaning and implications in such a way as to neutralise theirconclusions. In contrast, the specific arguments of the traditionalists mightbe rejected, but their judgement that American policy-makers did the rightthing is typically vindicated. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that post-
© 2022, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

threePost-revisionismAccording to John Lewis Gaddis, the initial hope of post-revisionistscholars was that `if only we could take the strongest elements of thesetwo previous approaches [orthodoxy and revisionism], discard the weakerones, and ground the whole thing as much as possible in whatever archiveswere available, then truth would emerge'.1In this comment Gaddis capturescertain characteristic elements of post-revisionism, and above all its desire forsynthesis. Writing initially in the less febrile atmosphere of the 1970s, manypost-revisionists saw themselves as consciously avoiding the ideologicalperspectives and one-sided judgements of traditionalists and revisionists infavour of an `objective' approach that would dispassionately identify all therelevant causal factors and integrate them into an overarching explanation ofevents. In contrast to the simplistic and reductionist arguments of thehistorians of the 1950s and 1960s, post-revisionists would stress complexityand multi-causality in their explanations of American foreign policy. And,with new archival material appearing all the time, they would have theopportunity finally to ground their arguments in solid empirical evidence andthus to put an end to the arguments over who started the Cold War.That, at least, was how many post-revisionists saw it. Others would argue,with some justification, that, rather than an attempt to build a synthesis fromthe best elements of both previous interpretations, post-revisionist accountswere often an attempt to justify the broad conclusions of traditionalism whileneutralizing those of revisionism. Certainly, the characteristic method of post-revisionism in dealing with revisionist arguments is a `yes, but' formula thatconsists of accepting the broad contention of the revisionists but reinterpret-ing its meaning and implications in such a way as to neutralise theirconclusions. In contrast, the specific arguments of the traditionalists mightbe rejected, but their judgement that American policy-makers did the rightthing is typically vindicated. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that post-
© 2022, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter i
  2. Contents iii
  3. Acknowledgements iv
  4. Introduction 1
  5. 1. Traditionalism 9
  6. 2. Revisionism 29
  7. 3. Post-revisionism 61
  8. 4. Corporatism 89
  9. 5. World-systems Theory 110
  10. 6. Post-structuralism and Culture 140
  11. Conclusions 165
  12. Bibliography 172
  13. Index 185
Readers are also interested in:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474469425-005

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter i
  2. Contents iii
  3. Acknowledgements iv
  4. Introduction 1
  5. 1. Traditionalism 9
  6. 2. Revisionism 29
  7. 3. Post-revisionism 61
  8. 4. Corporatism 89
  9. 5. World-systems Theory 110
  10. 6. Post-structuralism and Culture 140
  11. Conclusions 165
  12. Bibliography 172
  13. Index 185
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781474469425-005/html?licenseType=restricted&srsltid=AfmBOorGc3emjTCrTplcsd1GghfVZLEH1mQ_ZYCH3WonloSKj5KAiYtW
Scroll to top button