No matter where I was posted, whether abroad or back in Ottawa, I usually managed to spend a brief summer vacation in France. There I dispensed with women altogether, caught up on my reading, and tried to write a book. I meant it to be a summary of recent times, with my experiences and judgment used tactfully, never intrusively, as a binding thread. I would have called it “My Century,” but the title had already been employed by a celebrated Polish poet. Every year at high summer, I was driven to unpack my Hermes, set it on the marble table in the shadiest part of the terrace, roll in a sheet of Extra Strong, and type “Chapter 1.” I could see a tamed and orderly design of streams and rivulets (early youth, intellectual awakening) feeding a tranquil river that debouched into a limpid sea. Unfortunately, it wanted only a few minutes for the sea to churn up and disgorge a ton of dead fish. Most people considered great were in reality only average; middling masters I held in contempt; as for amateurs in any field, I saw no reason why they should not be airlifted to Mongolia and left to forage. Obviously, this was of no interest to anyone except cranks; yet I felt no spite, no disappointment, no envy of younger men. I had done nearly everything I wanted, and had been as successful as my aunt had hoped.

After half an hour I would push the typewriter aside, open a thick notebook, uncap the gold Parker I was given years ago for having passed, unexpectedly well, an examination in political science, and write, “Chapter 1.” Then I would cap the pen and stare at the Mediterranean, wondering if the wisp of darkness on the horizon could be a mirage projection of Corsica.

Apart from this activity I ate breakfast and lunch at home, went down for a swim early, when no one was around, played some tennis at a court up near the railway station, and dined with elderly neighbors. At the end of a few weeks I bolted the window shutters, disconnected and locked up the telephone (so that burglars would not be tempted to make long-distance calls), and returned to the wrack and low tide of my profession.

GALLANT, Mavis. Let it Pass. In: Montreal Stories. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2004. (adapted)

No matter where I was posted, whether abroad or back in Ottawa, I usually managed to spend a brief summer vacation in France. There I dispensed with women altogether, caught up on my reading, and tried to write a book. I meant it to be a summary of recent times, with my experiences and judgment used tactfully, never intrusively, as a binding thread. I would have called it “My Century,” but the title had already been employed by a celebrated Polish poet. Every year at high summer, I was driven to unpack my Hermes, set it on the marble table in the shadiest part of the terrace, roll in a sheet of Extra Strong, and type “Chapter 1.” I could see a tamed and orderly design of streams and rivulets (early youth, intellectual awakening) feeding a tranquil river that debouched into a limpid sea. Unfortunately, it wanted only a few minutes for the sea to churn up and disgorge a ton of dead fish. Most people considered great were in reality only average; middling masters I held in contempt; as for amateurs in any field, I saw no reason why they should not be airlifted to Mongolia and left to forage. Obviously, this was of no interest to anyone except cranks; yet I felt no spite, no disappointment, no envy of younger men. I had done nearly everything I wanted, and had been as successful as my aunt had hoped.

After half an hour I would push the typewriter aside, open a thick notebook, uncap the gold Parker I was given years ago for having passed, unexpectedly well, an examination in political science, and write, “Chapter 1.” Then I would cap the pen and stare at the Mediterranean, wondering if the wisp of darkness on the horizon could be a mirage projection of Corsica.

Apart from this activity I ate breakfast and lunch at home, went down for a swim early, when no one was around, played some tennis at a court up near the railway station, and dined with elderly neighbors. At the end of a few weeks I bolted the window shutters, disconnected and locked up the telephone (so that burglars would not be tempted to make long-distance calls), and returned to the wrack and low tide of my profession.

GALLANT, Mavis. Let it Pass. In: Montreal Stories. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2004. (adapted)

No matter where I was posted, whether abroad or back in Ottawa, I usually managed to spend a brief summer vacation in France. There I dispensed with women altogether, caught up on my reading, and tried to write a book. I meant it to be a summary of recent times, with my experiences and judgment used tactfully, never intrusively, as a binding thread. I would have called it “My Century,” but the title had already been employed by a celebrated Polish poet. Every year at high summer, I was driven to unpack my Hermes, set it on the marble table in the shadiest part of the terrace, roll in a sheet of Extra Strong, and type “Chapter 1.” I could see a tamed and orderly design of streams and rivulets (early youth, intellectual awakening) feeding a tranquil river that debouched into a limpid sea. Unfortunately, it wanted only a few minutes for the sea to churn up and disgorge a ton of dead fish. Most people considered great were in reality only average; middling masters I held in contempt; as for amateurs in any field, I saw no reason why they should not be airlifted to Mongolia and left to forage. Obviously, this was of no interest to anyone except cranks; yet I felt no spite, no disappointment, no envy of younger men. I had done nearly everything I wanted, and had been as successful as my aunt had hoped.

After half an hour I would push the typewriter aside, open a thick notebook, uncap the gold Parker I was given years ago for having passed, unexpectedly well, an examination in political science, and write, “Chapter 1.” Then I would cap the pen and stare at the Mediterranean, wondering if the wisp of darkness on the horizon could be a mirage projection of Corsica.

Apart from this activity I ate breakfast and lunch at home, went down for a swim early, when no one was around, played some tennis at a court up near the railway station, and dined with elderly neighbors. At the end of a few weeks I bolted the window shutters, disconnected and locked up the telephone (so that burglars would not be tempted to make long-distance calls), and returned to the wrack and low tide of my profession.

GALLANT, Mavis. Let it Pass. In: Montreal Stories. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2004. (adapted)

No matter where I was posted, whether abroad or back in Ottawa, I usually managed to spend a brief summer vacation in France. There I dispensed with women altogether, caught up on my reading, and tried to write a book. I meant it to be a summary of recent times, with my experiences and judgment used tactfully, never intrusively, as a binding thread. I would have called it “My Century,” but the title had already been employed by a celebrated Polish poet. Every year at high summer, I was driven to unpack my Hermes, set it on the marble table in the shadiest part of the terrace, roll in a sheet of Extra Strong, and type “Chapter 1.” I could see a tamed and orderly design of streams and rivulets (early youth, intellectual awakening) feeding a tranquil river that debouched into a limpid sea. Unfortunately, it wanted only a few minutes for the sea to churn up and disgorge a ton of dead fish. Most people considered great were in reality only average; middling masters I held in contempt; as for amateurs in any field, I saw no reason why they should not be airlifted to Mongolia and left to forage. Obviously, this was of no interest to anyone except cranks; yet I felt no spite, no disappointment, no envy of younger men. I had done nearly everything I wanted, and had been as successful as my aunt had hoped.

After half an hour I would push the typewriter aside, open a thick notebook, uncap the gold Parker I was given years ago for having passed, unexpectedly well, an examination in political science, and write, “Chapter 1.” Then I would cap the pen and stare at the Mediterranean, wondering if the wisp of darkness on the horizon could be a mirage projection of Corsica.

Apart from this activity I ate breakfast and lunch at home, went down for a swim early, when no one was around, played some tennis at a court up near the railway station, and dined with elderly neighbors. At the end of a few weeks I bolted the window shutters, disconnected and locked up the telephone (so that burglars would not be tempted to make long-distance calls), and returned to the wrack and low tide of my profession.

GALLANT, Mavis. Let it Pass. In: Montreal Stories. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2004. (adapted)

Debating Diplomacy

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, diplomacy came to be widely debated not only by practitioners, policy experts, and academics but also in the popular press and among the general public. One of the most significant debates concerned whether diplomacy had been or would be successful in preventing the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein from possessing (or continuing to possess) weapons of mass destruction. Between 2001 and 2003, it appeared that most of the global public who were in a position to read a newspaper, watch television, or surf the Internet had formed an opinion, irrespective of whether they knew who was involved or how the diplomacy in question was being conducted. The US government of President George W. Bush and US allies, including the United Kingdom and Italy, were criticized by numerous other governments and civil society organizations for deciding on their own that multilateral diplomacy under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) had failed and hence to take military action against Iraq.

This debate about diplomacy raises a number of questions that point to underlying, scholarly debates about contemporary diplomacy that have significant implications for how it will be practiced in the future. The first question is a definitional issue with epistemological underpinnings: What is to count as diplomacy, and what is not? That these questions are fundamental to the study of diplomacy shows that the longstanding consensus about “what we mean by diplomacy” is now breaking down. The second, overlapping debate is about the extent to which diplomacy in the contemporary period has changed and is different from, or similar to, diplomacy in the past. Key to unpacking this debate is an understanding of what constitutes continuity and change. The third debate concerns the role of theory in diplomacy: What is the relationship between theorizing and practicing diplomacy? The most intellectually challenging of the three debates, it perhaps has the most far-reaching implications for how we understand and engage in diplomacy in the contemporary environment.

That these questions engender debate rather than consensus is a result of different sorts of knowledge and understanding being apposite to different issues. Some issues have emerged because of new empirical information that challenges previously held understandings. Others have arisen as a result of competing modes of analysis of information. Yet others, such as the theory and practicedebate, arise when more radically different and incompatible theoretical and epistemological approaches come into contention.

PIGMAN, Geoffrey Allen. Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy. In: KERR, Pauline; WISEMAN, Geoffrey. Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 72–89. (adapted)

Debating Diplomacy

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, diplomacy came to be widely debated not only by practitioners, policy experts, and academics but also in the popular press and among the general public. One of the most significant debates concerned whether diplomacy had been or would be successful in preventing the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein from possessing (or continuing to possess) weapons of mass destruction. Between 2001 and 2003, it appeared that most of the global public who were in a position to read a newspaper, watch television, or surf the Internet had formed an opinion, irrespective of whether they knew who was involved or how the diplomacy in question was being conducted. The US government of President George W. Bush and US allies, including the United Kingdom and Italy, were criticized by numerous other governments and civil society organizations for deciding on their own that multilateral diplomacy under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) had failed and hence to take military action against Iraq.

This debate about diplomacy raises a number of questions that point to underlying, scholarly debates about contemporary diplomacy that have significant implications for how it will be practiced in the future. The first question is a definitional issue with epistemological underpinnings: What is to count as diplomacy, and what is not? That these questions are fundamental to the study of diplomacy shows that the longstanding consensus about “what we mean by diplomacy” is now breaking down. The second, overlapping debate is about the extent to which diplomacy in the contemporary period has changed and is different from, or similar to, diplomacy in the past. Key to unpacking this debate is an understanding of what constitutes continuity and change. The third debate concerns the role of theory in diplomacy: What is the relationship between theorizing and practicing diplomacy? The most intellectually challenging of the three debates, it perhaps has the most far-reaching implications for how we understand and engage in diplomacy in the contemporary environment.

That these questions engender debate rather than consensus is a result of different sorts of knowledge and understanding being apposite to different issues. Some issues have emerged because of new empirical information that challenges previously held understandings. Others have arisen as a result of competing modes of analysis of information. Yet others, such as the theory and practicedebate, arise when more radically different and incompatible theoretical and epistemological approaches come into contention.

PIGMAN, Geoffrey Allen. Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy. In: KERR, Pauline; WISEMAN, Geoffrey. Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 72–89. (adapted)

Debating Diplomacy

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, diplomacy came to be widely debated not only by practitioners, policy experts, and academics but also in the popular press and among the general public. One of the most significant debates concerned whether diplomacy had been or would be successful in preventing the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein from possessing (or continuing to possess) weapons of mass destruction. Between 2001 and 2003, it appeared that most of the global public who were in a position to read a newspaper, watch television, or surf the Internet had formed an opinion, irrespective of whether they knew who was involved or how the diplomacy in question was being conducted. The US government of President George W. Bush and US allies, including the United Kingdom and Italy, were criticized by numerous other governments and civil society organizations for deciding on their own that multilateral diplomacy under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) had failed and hence to take military action against Iraq.

This debate about diplomacy raises a number of questions that point to underlying, scholarly debates about contemporary diplomacy that have significant implications for how it will be practiced in the future. The first question is a definitional issue with epistemological underpinnings: What is to count as diplomacy, and what is not? That these questions are fundamental to the study of diplomacy shows that the longstanding consensus about “what we mean by diplomacy” is now breaking down. The second, overlapping debate is about the extent to which diplomacy in the contemporary period has changed and is different from, or similar to, diplomacy in the past. Key to unpacking this debate is an understanding of what constitutes continuity and change. The third debate concerns the role of theory in diplomacy: What is the relationship between theorizing and practicing diplomacy? The most intellectually challenging of the three debates, it perhaps has the most far-reaching implications for how we understand and engage in diplomacy in the contemporary environment.

That these questions engender debate rather than consensus is a result of different sorts of knowledge and understanding being apposite to different issues. Some issues have emerged because of new empirical information that challenges previously held understandings. Others have arisen as a result of competing modes of analysis of information. Yet others, such as the theory and practicedebate, arise when more radically different and incompatible theoretical and epistemological approaches come into contention.

PIGMAN, Geoffrey Allen. Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy. In: KERR, Pauline; WISEMAN, Geoffrey. Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 72–89. (adapted)

Debating Diplomacy

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, diplomacy came to be widely debated not only by practitioners, policy experts, and academics but also in the popular press and among the general public. One of the most significant debates concerned whether diplomacy had been or would be successful in preventing the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein from possessing (or continuing to possess) weapons of mass destruction. Between 2001 and 2003, it appeared that most of the global public who were in a position to read a newspaper, watch television, or surf the Internet had formed an opinion, irrespective of whether they knew who was involved or how the diplomacy in question was being conducted. The US government of President George W. Bush and US allies, including the United Kingdom and Italy, were criticized by numerous other governments and civil society organizations for deciding on their own that multilateral diplomacy under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) had failed and hence to take military action against Iraq.

This debate about diplomacy raises a number of questions that point to underlying, scholarly debates about contemporary diplomacy that have significant implications for how it will be practiced in the future. The first question is a definitional issue with epistemological underpinnings: What is to count as diplomacy, and what is not? That these questions are fundamental to the study of diplomacy shows that the longstanding consensus about “what we mean by diplomacy” is now breaking down. The second, overlapping debate is about the extent to which diplomacy in the contemporary period has changed and is different from, or similar to, diplomacy in the past. Key to unpacking this debate is an understanding of what constitutes continuity and change. The third debate concerns the role of theory in diplomacy: What is the relationship between theorizing and practicing diplomacy? The most intellectually challenging of the three debates, it perhaps has the most far-reaching implications for how we understand and engage in diplomacy in the contemporary environment.

That these questions engender debate rather than consensus is a result of different sorts of knowledge and understanding being apposite to different issues. Some issues have emerged because of new empirical information that challenges previously held understandings. Others have arisen as a result of competing modes of analysis of information. Yet others, such as the theory and practicedebate, arise when more radically different and incompatible theoretical and epistemological approaches come into contention.

PIGMAN, Geoffrey Allen. Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy. In: KERR, Pauline; WISEMAN, Geoffrey. Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 72–89. (adapted)

Debating Diplomacy

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, diplomacy came to be widely debated not only by practitioners, policy experts, and academics but also in the popular press and among the general public. One of the most significant debates concerned whether diplomacy had been or would be successful in preventing the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein from possessing (or continuing to possess) weapons of mass destruction. Between 2001 and 2003, it appeared that most of the global public who were in a position to read a newspaper, watch television, or surf the Internet had formed an opinion, irrespective of whether they knew who was involved or how the diplomacy in question was being conducted. The US government of President George W. Bush and US allies, including the United Kingdom and Italy, were criticized by numerous other governments and civil society organizations for deciding on their own that multilateral diplomacy under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) had failed and hence to take military action against Iraq.

This debate about diplomacy raises a number of questions that point to underlying, scholarly debates about contemporary diplomacy that have significant implications for how it will be practiced in the future. The first question is a definitional issue with epistemological underpinnings: What is to count as diplomacy, and what is not? That these questions are fundamental to the study of diplomacy shows that the longstanding consensus about “what we mean by diplomacy” is now breaking down. The second, overlapping debate is about the extent to which diplomacy in the contemporary period has changed and is different from, or similar to, diplomacy in the past. Key to unpacking this debate is an understanding of what constitutes continuity and change. The third debate concerns the role of theory in diplomacy: What is the relationship between theorizing and practicing diplomacy? The most intellectually challenging of the three debates, it perhaps has the most far-reaching implications for how we understand and engage in diplomacy in the contemporary environment.

That these questions engender debate rather than consensus is a result of different sorts of knowledge and understanding being apposite to different issues. Some issues have emerged because of new empirical information that challenges previously held understandings. Others have arisen as a result of competing modes of analysis of information. Yet others, such as the theory and practicedebate, arise when more radically different and incompatible theoretical and epistemological approaches come into contention.

PIGMAN, Geoffrey Allen. Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy. In: KERR, Pauline; WISEMAN, Geoffrey. Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 72–89. (adapted)

Debating Diplomacy

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, diplomacy came to be widely debated not only by practitioners, policy experts, and academics but also in the popular press and among the general public. One of the most significant debates concerned whether diplomacy had been or would be successful in preventing the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein from possessing (or continuing to possess) weapons of mass destruction. Between 2001 and 2003, it appeared that most of the global public who were in a position to read a newspaper, watch television, or surf the Internet had formed an opinion, irrespective of whether they knew who was involved or how the diplomacy in question was being conducted. The US government of President George W. Bush and US allies, including the United Kingdom and Italy, were criticized by numerous other governments and civil society organizations for deciding on their own that multilateral diplomacy under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) had failed and hence to take military action against Iraq.

This debate about diplomacy raises a number of questions that point to underlying, scholarly debates about contemporary diplomacy that have significant implications for how it will be practiced in the future. The first question is a definitional issue with epistemological underpinnings: What is to count as diplomacy, and what is not? That these questions are fundamental to the study of diplomacy shows that the longstanding consensus about “what we mean by diplomacy” is now breaking down. The second, overlapping debate is about the extent to which diplomacy in the contemporary period has changed and is different from, or similar to, diplomacy in the past. Key to unpacking this debate is an understanding of what constitutes continuity and change. The third debate concerns the role of theory in diplomacy: What is the relationship between theorizing and practicing diplomacy? The most intellectually challenging of the three debates, it perhaps has the most far-reaching implications for how we understand and engage in diplomacy in the contemporary environment.

That these questions engender debate rather than consensus is a result of different sorts of knowledge and understanding being apposite to different issues. Some issues have emerged because of new empirical information that challenges previously held understandings. Others have arisen as a result of competing modes of analysis of information. Yet others, such as the theory and practicedebate, arise when more radically different and incompatible theoretical and epistemological approaches come into contention.

PIGMAN, Geoffrey Allen. Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy. In: KERR, Pauline; WISEMAN, Geoffrey. Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 72–89. (adapted)