Geopolitics as a Social Movement: The Causal Primacy of Ideas
2004; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 9; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/14650040490442980
ISSN1557-3028
Autores Tópico(s)Historical Studies of British Isles
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 L. Greenfeld, Nationalism Five Roads to Modernity(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1992) p.18. 2 On ‘imagined communities’ see B. Anderson, Imagined Communities Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism(London: Verso 1983). On ‘invented traditions’ see E.J.Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 18701914’ in E.J. Hobsbawm and T.Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1983) pp.114; and E.J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990). On heredity and ethnicity see M. Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging Journeys into the New Nationalism (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux 1993); and A.D. Smith, National Identity (Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press 1990). 3 Greenfeld (note 1) p.21. 4 G. Dijkink, ‘Geopolitics as a Social Movement’, Geopolitics 9/2 (2004), pp.460475. 5 See H.F. Mackinder, ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’, Geographical Journal 23/4 (1904) pp.42137. 6 Taylor has discussed the geographical novelty of Mackinder's HeartlandCrescent mapping. See: P.J. Taylor, ‘Geopolitical World Orders’, in P.J. Taylor (ed.), Political Geography of the Twentieth Century A Global Analysis (London: Bellhaven 1993) pp.3361. 7 For example, Mackinder's impact on national strategising remains unclear. Although some treatments of Mackinder proceed as if his texts manifested themselves in a distinct imperial context, others remain less certain. Blouet writes that despite Mackinder being a member of parliament and closely affiliated with various foreign secretaries and other influential academics, his ideas never clearly manifested themselves in national policy. See B.W. Blouet, Halford Mackinder A Biography (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press 1987). However, in the final analysis, it is important to note that Mackinder's work, along with that of Ratzel in Germany and Kjellén in Sweden, took political geography out of the university and into the halls of statecraft under the moniker Geopolitik. See M. Heffernan, ‘Fin de Siècle, Fin du Monde? On the Origins of European Geopolitics, 18901920’, in K. Dodds and D. Atkinson (eds), Geopolitical Traditions A Century of Geopolitical Thought (London: Routledge 2000) pp.2751. 8 Dijkink (note 4) pp.460475. 9 Although there is clearly more that goes on in poststructural analysis than mere deconstruction. On reconstruction see D. Slater, ‘Spatialities of Power and Postmodern Ethics Rethinking Geopolitical Encounters’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15/1 (January 1997) pp.5572. 10 Dijkink (note 4) pp.460475. 11 See J.A. Agnew, ‘Global Political Geography Beyond Geopolitics’, International Studies Review 2/1 (Spring 2000) pp.919 and S. Dalby, ‘Writing Critical Geopolitics: Campbell, Ó Tuathail, Reynolds, and Dissident Skepticism’, Political Geography 15/67 (July 1996) pp.65560. 12 J. Agnew and S. Corbridge, Mastering Space Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy (London: Routledge, 1995) p.7. 13 Geo-graphs ‘reduce complex geographical realities to reified entities or metaphors of supposedly stable geographical places’. See: S. Dalby, ‘The Environment As A Geopolitical Threat: Reading Robert Kaplan's “Coming Anarchy”’, Ecumene 3/4 (Fall 1996) pp.47296. 14 Dijkink (note 4) pp.460475. 15 Cohen (1973) notes the legacy of Mackinder's work in other geopolitical thinkers. Karl Haushofer (Germany), for instance, borrowed from Mackinder's model when he noted the advantages of land-based over sea-based powers. Haushofer's pan-regional notions of Lebensraum (living space) and Autarchy self-sufficiency) would rely on Mackinder's geographical isolation of the World-Island as central to World Order hegemony. Alfred Mahan (US), too, although reversing Mackinder's prioritisation of land-power to focus on the centrality of sea-power and strategic land bases, clearly owed a debt to the larger Heartland model. Nicholas Spykman (US) also borrowed from Mackinder's model when he re-positioned the (Amphibian) Rimland or Mackinder's Marginal Crescent as central to world hegemony. See S.B. Cohen, Geography and Politics in a World Divided (New York: Oxford University Press 1973). 16 S. Dalby and G. Ó Tuathail, ‘The Critical Geopolitics Constellation: Problematizing Fusions of Geographical Knowledge and Power’, Political Geography 15/67 (July 1996) pp.4516. 17 For instance, Agnew criticises Ó Tuathail for prioritising geopolitical representation at the expense of geopolitical practice. See Agnew (note 11). 18 See G. Ó Tuathail, ‘Dissident I.R. and the Identity Politics Narrative: A Sympathetically Skeptical Narrative’, Political Geography 15/67 (July 1996) pp.64753 and idem, ‘The Patterned Mess of History and the Writing of Critical Geopolitics: A Reply to Dalby’, Political Geography 15/67 (July 1996) pp.6615. 19 Dalby, ‘Writing Critical Geopolitics’ (note 11) and idem, Creating the Second Cold War The Discourse of Politics (London: Pinter 1990). 20 D. Campbell, Writing Security (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press 1998). 21 R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993). 22 On gender and critical geopolitics, see J.P. Sharp, ‘Remasculinzing Geo-Politics? Comments on Gearoid Ó Tuathail's “Critical Geopolitics”’, Political Geography 19/3 (March 2000) pp.3614. On geopolitics as an epistemology/methodology, see M. Heffernan, ‘Balancing Visions: Comments on Gearoid Ó Tuathail's Critical Geopolitics’, Political Geography 19/3 (March 2000) pp.34752. 23 W. Natter, ‘Hyphenated Practices: What Put the Hyphen in Geopolitics?’, Political Geography 19/3 (March 2000) pp.35360. 24 Following Laclau and Mouffe, non-antagonism names the possibility of two entirely different and fully constituted objective identities for instance, sanctioned and unsanctioned knowledge classes. In contrast, the notion of antagonism rejects the possibility of objective identities, suggesting that identities are relationally constituted and thus that they lose their absolute positivity. Antagonism, as such, presumes that the presence of an object/identity prevents the full realisation of another object/identity, and in turn, that the presence of one prevents the full realisation of the other. See E. Laclau and C. Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso 1985). 25 Ó Tuathail (note 18) refers to this as the empirical messiness of geopolitical worlds. 26 The new geographical condition of proximity and contiguousness was the stuff of popular political discussion in Mackinder's time. The growing industrial power of Germany and the growing competitiveness of American wheat exports was widely discussed in terms of the need for a renewed British economic strategy. Debate between free trade Liberals and pro-imperial tariff union Conservatives dominated British domestic politics and contributed to a sense of impending geoeconomic crisis. The contest between pro-free trade City-based financial interests and pro-tariff industrial and social reformers was eventually resolved by Prime Minister Chamberlain's 1903 decision to abandon free trade policies in favour of tariff reform. In short, popular political debate fueled a sense of crisis and informed the development of various British national/imperial initiatives ‘designed to combat a perceived deterioration in Britain's position as a world power, which involved improved efficiency at home coupled with a drawing together of the British empire, the aim being to form a trading bloc capable of competing with the Germans in a struggle between national economies which was subsequently described in pseudo-Darwinian language’. R. Mayhew, ‘Halford Mackinder's “New” Political Geography and the Geographical Tradition’, Political Geography 19/6 (August 2000) p.774. 27 See G. Kearns, ‘Fin de Siècle Geopolitics: Mackinder, Hobson and Theories of Global Closure’ in Taylor (note 6) pp.930. 28 Laclau and Mouffe (note 24) p.105. 29 G. Ó Tuathail and J.A. Agnew, ‘Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy’, Political Geography 11/2 (February 1992) pp.1923. 30 On ‘blowback’ see C.A. Johnson, Blowback The Costs and Consequences of American (Empire New York: Metropolitan 2000). On empire as armed struggle, see N. Milner, S. Krishna and K.E. Ferguson, ‘The US Response as Armed Struggle’, Theory and Event 5/4 (2002) pp.115, available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v005/5.7ferguson_01.html 31 J. Lockard, ‘Social Fear and the Commodification of Terrorism’, Bad Subjects Political Education for Everyday Life 59 (February 2002) pp.17, available at http://eserver.org/bs/. 32 C. Rentschler, C. Stabile and J. Sterne, ‘United We Stand: Fresh Hoagies Daily’, Bad Subjects Political Education for Everyday Life 59 (February 2002) pp.18, available at http://eserver.org/bs/.
Referência(s)