Notwithstanding globalization, our social world is fragmented by borders and fences, and in recent years, it has become even more delineated. Borders, walls, and fences are built between states, between cities, and within cities, and gated communities are a spreading norm. These boundaries are not limited to social, political, and economic entities. They exist in other realms as well, such as academia. Such boundaries are evident in the present critical dialogue, as they play a fascinating and complementary role in the two reciprocated critiques. In a nutshell, I criticized Joas and Knöbl for turning a blind eye to disciplinary boundaries, and Joas criticized me for yielding to them too easily. These two lines of obverse criticism reaffirm the importance of cross-disciplinary critical dialogue.

Joas levels two main criticisms at my book. The first is that the political biography is not comprehensive enough in that I focus mainly on “the self-perception of American political science,” to the extent of neglecting the European, mainly German, discussions of the democratic peace. The second is that I am preoccupied with political science and fail to explore the significance of my discussions “for the other social sciences and for the humanities as well.” Now compare these two criticisms with my own criticism of Joas and Knöbl, that “they venture into disciplines in which they are less versed,” which, I argue, weakens the forcefulness and accuracy of their arguments. Put differently, Joas accuses me of being paralyzed by disciplinary boundaries and of limiting myself to a narrow segment of academia. For my part, I say that Joas and Knöbl are blinded by the promise of a “postdisciplinary history of disciplines,” and fall victim to the resilience of disciplinary divisions.

There is much truth in Joas's criticism. I do restrict myself to political science and in particular American political science (though I do analyze it using European perspectives, such as hermeneutics and Gramscian critical theory). By limiting myself to what I see as a workable and reasonable research program, I may well have secured an accuracy and coherency for my arguments, but at a price. I may have bought excessively into disciplinary boundaries and in so doing failed to consider the relevance of my arguments to the broader fields of social sciences and humanities. Perhaps I have also helped to reify academia as a loose assembly of gated communities.

I think, however, that it is possible for us to reach past disciplinary boundaries, though not as Joas and Knöbl suggest, by ignoring the real differences between disciplines. I think the way forward is to invite real critical dialogue like this one here, within and between different disciplines. This dialogue would be one that acknowledges boundaries while recognizing and making the most of what academics do share. Such a dialogue can carry the knowledge and insights produced locally within our communities across the boundaries into other disciplines, securing coherency and accuracy as well as broad relevancy and applicability.