Classical and Critical Geopolitics
The original version of the classical geopolitical tradition proposes that states’
foreign policies are heavily influenced, if not determined, by their physical
geography. In contrast, what has come to be called the ‘critical geopolitical’
tradition has flourished, presenting several innovative studies questioning issues
such as static conceptions of space, state centricity, the lack of normative
considerations in classical approaches, and the role of subjectivity in world
affairs. At its core, critical geopolitics argues that space is narrated and that
geography is not ‘objective’ but a social construction; an understanding providing
a very different analytical point of departure for a state’s standing in world affairs,
especially concerning the sources and variability of state power. Nevertheless,
classical geopolitical reasoning continues to be influential.
Classical geopolitics-
The period between the end of the nineteenth century and the end of the Second
World War might be defined as the golden era of ―classical geopolitics both in
terms of theory and practice.
Classical geopolitics is the study of the impact or influence of certain geographic
features—these being positions and locations of regions, states, and resources
plus topography, climate, distance, immigration, states’ sizes and shapes,
demography, and the like—upon states’ foreign policies and actions as an aid to
statecraft. Accordingly, this study lends itself to a description and analysis both
of theory and of policy.
The classical label is raised here to separate traditional geopolitics from
postmodern “critical geopolitics,” the latter differing quite extensively from the
former. The traditional emphasizes the gathering and applying of objective and
interpretive theory; the critical focuses upon deconstructing alleged exploitation,
blaming geopolitics itself for assisting in the exploitation, with theory largely
ignored.
An exploration of the genesis of classical geopolitics lies in a conviction that
location and resources are pivotal to the exercise of political power over territory.
Classical geopolitics, the term used to describe the earliest writings, was for
Kjellén an intellectual field that recognised that it was “ a science which
conceives of the state as a geographical organism or as a phenomenon in space.”
Later authors thought that geopolitics was more than a science. It was a way of
understanding designed to signal a rather hard-nosed or realist approach to
international politics. What made it reliable was its ability to generate law-like
statements about the importance of the facts of physical geography, such as the
distribution of landmass, the extent of the oceans, and the importance of
particular, strategically located regions, in determining patterns of global political
power.
The fate of classical geopolitics is uneven in the English-speaking world, in
particular with a formal decline in the post-1945 period, signs of revival in the
1970s and 1980s, decline in the 1990s, and now re-emergence in a new era
characterized by nationalism, nativism, populism. Animated concerns about
borders and population composition and size provide fertile ground for old ideas
to re-emerge about the needs of nation-states to secure their territories and
peoples from others.
Critical geopolitics-
Critical geopolitics is a loose field that emerged in the late 1980s at the interface
between Political Geography and International Relations. Prominent figures in
the field include geographers such as John Agnew, Gerard Toa, Simon Dalby,
and Klaus Dodds. The term ―critical geopolitics‖ was coined and inspired by the
works of these geographers.
According to the critical geopolitical approach, space is essentially narrated and
thus highly contextual and dependent on social constructions, discourses, and
moldable identities. With roots in constructivism, critical theory, poststructuralist
traditions, feminism, and postcolonial critique, critical geopolitics today has
become ‘an integral part of mainstream human geography’ where it has
broadened the understanding of spatiality and subjectivity in world affairs.
Critical geopolitics was established as a poststructural approach, which insists
that rather than being an apolitical influence on international politics, as
conventional accounts of geopolitics would argue, geographical relationships and
entities are specific to historical and cultural circumstances. As the meaning of
geography can be made to change, there is a politics to the use of geographical
concepts in arguments about international relations. Following Foucault, critical
geopolitics analyzes discourses of geography in international relations theory and
practice to examine the power relations supported by such representations.
Various attempts have been made to apply the critical geopolitics approach to the
analysis of political speeches, policy documents, and popular culture. More
recently, scholars have sought to go beyond the approach's origins in textual
analysis to provide critical accounts of geopolitics which understand the
inscription of international politics in the body, take account of the multiple
practices that comprise the geopolitical, and offer an extended understanding of
agency that takes in a variety of nonhuman actants in the theorization of both the
-politics and the geo- in geopolitics.
Critical geopolitics also examines geopolitical practices with the goal of
understanding geographical and political reasoning and how it conditions
practices in world politics. It examines geopolitical tradition, revisiting the
historical and geographical context of ideas about geography and politics, the
relation between geopolitics and popular culture, and last but not least it studies
structural geopolitics linking the practices of statecraft to globalization and
information networks. In a wider sense it aims at critically examining anything
related to geography and politics. It helps us to assess how the practice of world
politics has been executed throughout different geopolitical orders and how our
view of the world is built upon these premises.
Critical geopolitics and modern geopolitical discourse- One of the basic aims
of critical geopolitics is to deconstruct hegemonic geopolitical discourses.
Discourse analysis thus constitutes the basic element of this approach.
Critical geopolitics argues that geography as a discourse is a form of
power/knowledge relation and should thus be critically investigated. Such an
analysis enables us to see how social and political life is constructed through
discourses.
What is said or written by political elites—the whole community of government
officials, political leaders, foreign-policy experts and advisors—is a result of the
unconscious adoption of rules of living, thinking, and speaking that are implicit
in the texts, speeches, and documents. This group, on the other hand, is also
considered to be the elite that guides the masses concerning how they should live,
think, and speak. It is thus a ready-made way of thinking and has similarities with
the characteristics of ideologies. Thus analyzing geopolitical discourse, by
revealing the writing of the international geopolitical order, is of crucial
importance, since it informs action and practice in the world.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, critical geopolitics is aimed at revisiting and unpacking the
foundational assumptions of classical geopolitics. It seeks to revisit the
epistemological assumptions and ontological commitments of classical
geopolitics. It has produced a number of in-depth studies which, together with
accurate biographical works, have helped scholars to better understand the
cultural origins, biases, and theoretical limitations of classical geopolitics.
Classical and critical geopolitics share a common concern—geography matters
in politics—but where they differ is how, where, and why geography matters.
