William J. Buxton

Context and Contours of American Cold-War Social Science

Perhaps because of its anomalous and imprecise quality (as befitting its name) the Cold War has been the object of considerable speculation, commentary, and analysis. Early reflections on the meaning and significance of the Cold War (primarily a psychological rather than a material struggle) helped to shape and fuel it, becoming part and parcel of what strategists and theorists originally sought to define (e.g., Lippmann 1947, Zacharias 1950, Lukacs 1961). As the Cold War began to fade into the past, increasing attention was given to making sense of what happened and why, and how specific decisions and policies intersected with broader strategies (Friedman 2000, Gaddis 2000). More often than not, the historiographies that underpinned analyses of the Cold War were bound up with particular sets of political loyalties and affinities, making for contentious and sometimes rancorous debates (Paterson 1971, Schrecker 1998, Haynes 2000). Once the Cold War had been consolidated as an historical category of over-riding and over-arching significance, it became a point of reference for shifts in thought and ideas—particularly in the realm of culture and the arts (Saunders 1999, Berghahn 2001). Apart from a few recent texts (e.g., Robin 2009, Solovey and Cravens 2012), the role played by the social sciences in this global confrontation has received only cursory examination. To be sure, over the years a number of works have appeared that address particular aspects of social-scientific activity during the Cold War (e.g., Simpson 1994, Glander 2000, Parry-Giles 2002, Gilman 2003, Wax 2008). But the various partial analyses have never added up to form a whole. And more general overviews of how the social sciences developed in the post-World War II period largely fail to take into account how they were shaped by escalating tensions between the U.S.S.R and the United States (e.g., Lyons 1969). This oversight has been unfortunate. While the post-war period spawned a number of fields in the human sciences including strategic studies, Sovietology, game theory, and modernization theory, the practical assumptions that gave rise to these approaches have largely escaped close scrutiny. While current assumptions about how and why social sciences should be funded were largely forged in the Cold War crucible, broader accounts of how the current pattern of patronage developed have been notably lacking. The publication of these two insightful and thoroughly researched volumes goes a long way to help fill this void. Mark Solovey’s focus, in Shaky Foundations, is on funding patterns for the social sciences during the two decades after World War II. Following the money, he delves into how socialscientific research was supported by both private and government agencies, including philanthropy and the military. To this end, The Contours of America’s Cold War, by Matthew Farish. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2010. 351pp.

Context and Contours of American Cold-War Social Science: Policy Pundits and Military-Landscape Architects

25.00 paper. ISBN: 9780816648 436.

FERNAND DUMONT AND THE VICISSITUDES OF CULTURAL POLICY IN QUÉBEC

Perhaps because of its anomalous and imprecise quality (as befitting its name) the Cold War has been the object of considerable speculation, commentary, and analysis. Early reflections on the meaning and significance of the Cold War (primarily a psychological rather than a material struggle) helped to shape and fuel it, becoming part and parcel of what strategists and theorists originally sought to define (e.g., Lippmann 1947, Zacharias 1950, Lukacs 1961). As the Cold War began to fade into the past, increasing attention was given to making sense of what happened and why, and how specific decisions and policies intersected with broader strategies (Friedman 2000, Gaddis 2000). More often than not, the historiographies that underpinned analyses of the Cold War were bound up with particular sets of political loyalties and affinities, making for contentious and sometimes rancorous debates (Paterson 1971, Schrecker 1998, Haynes 2000). Once the Cold War had been consolidated as an historical category of over-riding and over-arching significance, it became a point of reference for shifts in thought and ideas—particularly in the realm of culture and the arts (Saunders 1999, Berghahn 2001). Apart from a few recent texts (e.g., Robin 2009, Solovey and Cravens 2012), the role played by the social sciences in this global confrontation has received only cursory examination. To be sure, over the years a number of works have appeared that address particular aspects of social-scientific activity during the Cold War (e.g., Simpson 1994, Glander 2000, Parry-Giles 2002, Gilman 2003, Wax 2008). But the various partial analyses have never added up to form a whole. And more general overviews of how the social sciences developed in the post-World War II period largely fail to take into account how they were shaped by escalating tensions between the U.S.S.R and the United States (e.g., Lyons 1969). This oversight has been unfortunate. While the post-war period spawned a number of fields in the human sciences including strategic studies, Sovietology, game theory, and modernization theory, the practical assumptions that gave rise to these approaches have largely escaped close scrutiny. While current assumptions about how and why social sciences should be funded were largely forged in the Cold War crucible, broader accounts of how the current pattern of patronage developed have been notably lacking. The publication of these two insightful and thoroughly researched volumes goes a long way to help fill this void. Mark Solovey’s focus, in Shaky Foundations, is on funding patterns for the social sciences during the two decades after World War II. Following the money, he delves into how socialscientific research was supported by both private and government agencies, including philanthropy and the military. To this end, The Contours of America’s Cold War, by Matthew Farish. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2010. 351pp.

Harold Innis in the new century : reflections and refractions

25.00 paper. ISBN: 9780816648 436.

John Marshall and the Humanities in Europe: Shifting Patterns of Rockefeller Foundation Support

This paper examines the role of the intellectual in relation to cultural policy in Québec, with particular attention given to the contributions made by Fernand Dumont. It is argued that because of its status as an “imagined community” rooted in a social movement – but still within the structure of a provincial government bent on expanding its powers – Quebec’s cultural policy differs markedly from that of states whose administrative structures have been more stable and routinized. In particular, not only have intellectuals and artists played an active part in the formation of cultural policy, but culture itself has been defined in a broad and holistic sense. The paper maintains that Fernand Dumont embodied the engaged, culturally astute intellectual within Québec, and that an examination of how his policy work was informed by his views on identity and culture sheds light on the dilemmas facing intellectuals who wish to become involved in public service.