4 ms·

Foreign Affairs at 100: A look back at the first issue

rollinDyno 4y ago
Cute little article I enjoyed reading. It seems to me that in terms of organization the author does not mention that the first section of current editions are usually organized around a single topic, and then there's a loose collection of essays. I'm also curious whether the second release allowed readers to write replies, or whether this came much after.
euroderf 4y ago
In the 70s I read it cover to cover, but after Reagan took office they started going deep into the ideological crazy. Haven't hardly looked at it since.
- hereforphone 4y ago
  So they disagreed with your world view?
  - caycep 4y ago
    I don't know if that was bc reaganites just took over a lot of the FP establishment for a while... at least recently, I've noticed their list of invited writers seem to reflect "bothsidisms" no matter how wacky.
    - wannabebarista 4y ago
      You especially see this in the occasional response articles where several invited authors offer rapid-fire responses to a featured article. When there are a limited number of reasonable positions to take, wackiness is bound to seep in. Not that this is particularly wacky, but here’s an example: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-08-24/masters-and-commanders https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-0...
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    Are you suggesting that all world views, no matter how ignorant or contradictory, are equally valid?
    - hereforphone 4y ago
      Do you believe that the views you perceive as ignorant and contradictory, are objectively ignorant and contradictory? Could there be any bias in your perception?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - vkou 4y ago
        Do you believe that no views are ignorant and contradictory? Or do you simply believe that we aren't equipped to tell them from ones that aren't? If it's the former, I will have to say I disagree (If I could put words to it, in a manner that you would find ignorant and contradictory, and bad-faith and self-serving.) If it's the latter, then there's no point in discussing, well, anything.
        abudabi123 4y ago
        The FPRI (Foreign Policy Research Institute) has insightful interviews with people close to the cauldron of events. At year 75 since colonial independence there is very fine interview with a historian of Pakistan which can be contrasted with what deskjob handlers have to say.
    - karaterobot 4y ago
      I read it more like "did you unsubscribe to the magazine because the quality decreased, or because it took an editorial position you disagreed with?" We always talk about the importance of understanding opposing viewpoints. There's value in paying someone to say things you already think, but in a better way than you could. But, there's also value in reading the best version of an argument you despise, and reckoning with it.
  - euroderf 4y ago
    To a first approximation: Yes. What particularly bugged me was giving prominent cover placement to ideologues like Jean Kirkpatrick, who never met a tin-horned tyrant she didn't like. It was (AFAICT) part of a heavy lean by FA into an intellectually deficient ruling clique.
bigcat12345678 4y ago
I booked half year subscription, and had deep disappointment. Each and every article is without the basic substance on how the ideas were developed and what the reasoning behind their consequences. All articles are pure ideology showcasing of the author, who might or might not believe what they stated in the article...
- EarthIsHome 4y ago
  That's the point of the magazine: it's to spread ideologies around. If you want to know what people in the state department (or adjacent/influential) are thinking, then "articles" in this magazine are one way of peering into their minds. One example of this is the the Mr. X article. It was published anonymously in Foreign Affairs. Mr. X was George Kennan, a US diplomat, who popularized the strategy of containment which ended up as US foreign policy during the Cold War. [0] So, if you want to know what's en vogue in certain foreign policy groups in US and western society, then Foreign Affairs is a very good magazine... But your point is right: I found very little substance and critical evidence to back many of the ideas presented when I had a subscription. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Article
  - uoaei 4y ago
    More broadly, this perspective applies to most (all?) "news" media sources today. Actually fringe outlets are on average much worse, passing through the land of ideology toward pure virtue-signalling. The goal of reading news today isn't necessarily to get facts: those are accessible through implicit analysis and triangulation of the many perspectives offered for public consideration, and unfortunately that takes a lot of time and energy to the point where it needs to be one of your daily routines to get "caught up". The goal of simply reading news more generally is to understand the ideologies driving decisions in the halls of power (legislators, ministerial positions, and "deep state" a la The Blob). Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent was treated as an instruction manual by those whom it did not already describe at publication time, and the entire public discourse has seemed to be infected by such a strain of bad-faith ideology propagation as opposed to good-faith dialectics. It is a prisoner's dilemma after all -- if you make a good-faith argument, your opponent will capitalize on it in a bad-faith manner to dominate the narrative. The most significant positive change to my media literacy was in paying attention to which authors represent which viewpoints, and which platforms publish which authors for which reasons.

Cute little article I enjoyed reading. It seems to me that in terms of organization the author does not mention that the first section of current editions are usually organized around a single topic, and then there's a loose collection of essays. I'm also curious whether the second release allowed readers to write replies, or whether this came much after.

euroderf 4y ago

In the 70s I read it cover to cover, but after Reagan took office they started going deep into the ideological crazy. Haven't hardly looked at it since.

hereforphone 4y ago
So they disagreed with your world view?
- caycep 4y ago
  I don't know if that was bc reaganites just took over a lot of the FP establishment for a while... at least recently, I've noticed their list of invited writers seem to reflect "bothsidisms" no matter how wacky.
  - wannabebarista 4y ago
    You especially see this in the occasional response articles where several invited authors offer rapid-fire responses to a featured article. When there are a limited number of reasonable positions to take, wackiness is bound to seep in. Not that this is particularly wacky, but here’s an example: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-08-24/masters-and-commanders https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-0...
- lkrubner 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that all world views, no matter how ignorant or contradictory, are equally valid?
  - hereforphone 4y ago
    Do you believe that the views you perceive as ignorant and contradictory, are objectively ignorant and contradictory? Could there be any bias in your perception?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - vkou 4y ago
      Do you believe that no views are ignorant and contradictory? Or do you simply believe that we aren't equipped to tell them from ones that aren't? If it's the former, I will have to say I disagree (If I could put words to it, in a manner that you would find ignorant and contradictory, and bad-faith and self-serving.) If it's the latter, then there's no point in discussing, well, anything.
      - abudabi123 4y ago
        The FPRI (Foreign Policy Research Institute) has insightful interviews with people close to the cauldron of events. At year 75 since colonial independence there is very fine interview with a historian of Pakistan which can be contrasted with what deskjob handlers have to say.
  - karaterobot 4y ago
    I read it more like "did you unsubscribe to the magazine because the quality decreased, or because it took an editorial position you disagreed with?" We always talk about the importance of understanding opposing viewpoints. There's value in paying someone to say things you already think, but in a better way than you could. But, there's also value in reading the best version of an argument you despise, and reckoning with it.
- euroderf 4y ago
  To a first approximation: Yes. What particularly bugged me was giving prominent cover placement to ideologues like Jean Kirkpatrick, who never met a tin-horned tyrant she didn't like. It was (AFAICT) part of a heavy lean by FA into an intellectually deficient ruling clique.

bigcat12345678 4y ago

I booked half year subscription, and had deep disappointment. Each and every article is without the basic substance on how the ideas were developed and what the reasoning behind their consequences. All articles are pure ideology showcasing of the author, who might or might not believe what they stated in the article...

EarthIsHome 4y ago
That's the point of the magazine: it's to spread ideologies around. If you want to know what people in the state department (or adjacent/influential) are thinking, then "articles" in this magazine are one way of peering into their minds. One example of this is the the Mr. X article. It was published anonymously in Foreign Affairs. Mr. X was George Kennan, a US diplomat, who popularized the strategy of containment which ended up as US foreign policy during the Cold War. [0] So, if you want to know what's en vogue in certain foreign policy groups in US and western society, then Foreign Affairs is a very good magazine... But your point is right: I found very little substance and critical evidence to back many of the ideas presented when I had a subscription. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Article
- uoaei 4y ago
  More broadly, this perspective applies to most (all?) "news" media sources today. Actually fringe outlets are on average much worse, passing through the land of ideology toward pure virtue-signalling. The goal of reading news today isn't necessarily to get facts: those are accessible through implicit analysis and triangulation of the many perspectives offered for public consideration, and unfortunately that takes a lot of time and energy to the point where it needs to be one of your daily routines to get "caught up". The goal of simply reading news more generally is to understand the ideologies driving decisions in the halls of power (legislators, ministerial positions, and "deep state" a la The Blob). Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent was treated as an instruction manual by those whom it did not already describe at publication time, and the entire public discourse has seemed to be infected by such a strain of bad-faith ideology propagation as opposed to good-faith dialectics. It is a prisoner's dilemma after all -- if you make a good-faith argument, your opponent will capitalize on it in a bad-faith manner to dominate the narrative. The most significant positive change to my media literacy was in paying attention to which authors represent which viewpoints, and which platforms publish which authors for which reasons.