LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 1- CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
III. CRITICAL GEOPOLITICS
Introduction
The body of work, which aims to revisit and unpack the foundational assumptions of classical geopolitics that has developed since the 1980s can be described as critical geopolitics. This
101Ibid.
102 SPYKMAN, N. J., & NICHOLL, H. R. (1944). The Geography of the Peace. New York, Harcourt, Brace and Co,
p.41.
103 SPYKMAN, H. J. (1942). America's Strategy in World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power, New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, p.457.
55
strand provides a framework of analysis for the relationship between territoriality and politics. It assumes, in the words of Muller, that classical geopolitical reasoning constructs, administers, and organizes space through language.105 Muller defines critical geopolitics as the examination of ―the very construction and social effects of geopolitical imaginations and geopolitical identities- the imaginary spatial positioning of people, regions, states and the shifting boundaries that accompany this positioning‖.106 As such, this rather new approach
tries to better understand the cultural origins, biases and theoretical limitations of classical geopolitics.107 Geopolitics and geopolitical knowledge per se is not taken-for-granted as innocent, objective and impartial. To the contrary, classical geopolitics is criticized for envisaging geographical determinism and justifying imperial hegemony and superiority of Western European civilization. Instead of being a descriptive term intended to cover the study of foreign policy and grand statecraft, geopolitics is re-conceptualized as a form of political discourse.108 It is, what Toal calls, ―a culturally and politically varied way of describing, representing and writing about geography and international relations.‖109 In this
context, production of geopolitical knowledge is itself problematized and treated as an essentially contested political activity.110
105 MULLER M. (2008). Reconsidering the Concept of Discourse for the Field of Critical Geopolitics: Towards Discourse
As Language and Practice. Political Geography. 27, p.323.
106 MULLER M. (2008). p.323.
107 BORDONARO, F., Rediscovering Spykman in Exploring Geopolitics website, (consulted on March 22, 2012),
available
http://www.exploringgeopolitics.org/Publication_Bordonaro_Federico_Rediscovering_Spykman_Rimland_Geography_Pe ace_Foreign_Policy.html
108 DODDS. (2001). Political Geography III: Critical Geopolitics after Ten Years. Progress in Human Geography. 25,
p. 469.
109Ó TUATHAIL (TOAL), G., DALBY, S., & ROUTLEDGE, P. (1998). The Geopolitics Reader. London, Routledge.
p.3.
56
This is why the naturalist approach in classical geopolitics, namely claiming a neutral gaze on geopolitical reality is heavily criticized.111 Geopolitics in the new strand of thought is understood as ―a discursive practice by which intellectuals of statecraft ‗spatialize‘ international politics in such a way as to represent it as a ‗world‘ characterized by particular types of places, peoples and dramas.‖112 Therefore, an underlying claim is that geopolitical discourses are all human constructions, biased and in service of those who construct them. Subsequently, geopolitics is construed as prejudiced with power. The critical approach ―involves deconstructing the ways in which political elites have depicted and represented places in their exercise of power‖.113 It tries to deconstruct ―the hegemonic fixations of spatial
imaginations‖,114 thus deconstructs the supposedly ―objective‖ geopolitical knowledge and
exposes the power-knowledge relationship behind these constructions. In a nutshell, the post-structuralism embedded in critical geopolitics necessitates closer scrutiny and critical self-reflection on the power relations involved in the socio-cultural construction of geopolitical knowledge.
Centrality of Discursive Analysis
The theoretical underpinnings of critical geopolitics are usually traced back to the writings of Michel Foucault on the archaeology of knowledge. Modern day scholars such as Agnew, Toal, Dodds and Dalby base their analysis on Foucault‘s critical and deconstructive approach whereby the objectivity of geopolitical knowledge is problematized. Foucault‘s strong call for a closer scrutiny of the power/knowledge nexus in discourse is the starting point in critical analysis. As such, the broad assertion that there is no knowledge separable from the processes of power is strongly embraced in critical thinking. In the words of Toal and Agnew,
111 TOAL, G. (1996).
112 TOAL, G., & AGNEW, J. (1992). Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign
Policy. Political Geography, Vol. 11, p.192.
113 REUBER, P. (2000). Conflict Studies and Critical Geopolitics - Theoretical Concepts and Recent Research in
Political Geography. GeoJournal. 50, p.38.
57
―geopolitical writing is a highly ideological and deeply politicized form of analysis‖.115
As such, ―it produces knowledge to aid the practice of statecraft (foreign policy) and further the power of the state‖.116 Therefore, critical geopolitics is an attempt to ―problematize theoretical
enterprise that places the existing structures of power and knowledge in question‖.117
The research agenda of critical geopolitics is about critiquing geopolitical discourses in order to understand why and how they are constructed the way they are to supplement certain agendas.
Hence, this new approach to geopolitics is more discourse oriented. It understands geopolitics as a form of political discourse of power and space. It is through discourses that spatial, cultural and political boundaries are created in defining ―self‖ in the face of a threatening ―other‖. Discourses in this understanding are not merely texts, speeches and images but are language, ideas and practices which articulate, limit and position subjects. According to Bialasiewicz et al. ―discourses refer to a specific series of representations and practices through which meanings are produced, identities constituted, social relations established, and political and ethical outcomes made more or less possible‖.118 Discourses
are thus linguistic and cartographic constructions which aim to constitute the objects they speak of. One shall not be mistaken, however, that if policy makers thought differently of the world, it would be become different. Critical inquiry‘s concern with discourse does not involve a denial of the world‘s existence or the significance of materiality.119 In this context, discourses are conceptualized not only as language (discursive) but also as language and practice (performative). 120 Discursive signification, i.e. communicative construction of
115 TOAL, G. Ó.,& AGNEW, J. (1992). Geopolitics and Discourse. Political Geography. 11, p. 191. 116Ibid.
117TOAL, G. Ó. (1999). Understanding Critical Geopolitics: Geopolitics and Risk Society. Journal of Strategic Studies.
22, p.107.
118 BIALASIEWICZ, L., CAMPBELL, D., ELDEN, S., GRAHAM, S., JEFFREY, A., & WILLIAMS, A. J. (2007).
Performing Security: The Imaginative Geographies of Current US Strategy. Political Geography. 26, 405.
119 Ibid, p. 406.
58
meaning in a system of signification, lies deeply beneath critical analysis in geopolitics. It is not simply descriptive but normative and institutive. In other words, discursive representations and practice at the same time constitute ontological effects. Through reiterated practices discourse produces effects of which it names.121 Recitation and reiteration as limitations/enablers on policy reveal the importance of discourses in constituting geopolitical/geographical imaginations of policymakers and (foreign and security) policies that are followed accordingly.
As noted by Toal and Agnew, there are four general observations about geopolitical discourses and political elites.122 First is that ―simply describing a foreign policy problem is implicitly and tacitly normalizing a particular version of the world. To designate a place is to open up a field for possible taxonomies and trigger a series of narratives, subjects and appropriate foreign policy responses‖. As written by Said, merely to designate an area as ‗Islamic‘ is to designate an implicit foreign policy‖.123 Likewise, to designate an area/country
in the West brings along a different set of foreign policy options. Secondly, most geopolitical reasoning is practical rather than formal. Practical geopolitics is related to policy making and using geopolitical reasoning as a means of justifying concrete foreign policy actions. As such, there is a strong relation between how foreign policy discourses are practiced and geographies are imagined. It relies on narratives and binary distinctions found in societal mythologies,124 which are self-ascribed. The third is that geographical knowledge has a reductive nature which is filtered and suppressed to fit into simple geographical categories. Geopolitical reasoning actively suppresses the complex geographical reality of places in favour of simpler and controllable geopolitical abstractions.125 Fourthly, political elites in the core states have disproportionate influence on the constitution of dominant geopolitical
121 BUTLER, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex". New York, Routledge, p.2. 122 TOAL, G., & AGNEW, J. (1992). p.193-194.
123Ibid, p.194. 124Ibid. 125Ibid, p. 195
59
discourse. It does not mean however that geopolitical reasoning by the dominant power of peripheral or semi peripheral states remains unchallenged.
Types of Geopolitical Discourses
Critical geopolitics on micro and macro levels can be understood as consisting of geopolitical discourses and geopolitical cultures. Geopolitical discourses can be defined as public articulations and narrative codifications of the elements that make up a geopolitical culture.126 It is possible to identify three areas of study in critical geopolitics. These are formal (the way intellectuals of statecraft -academics mostly- study geopolitics), popular (ordinary people) and practical (foreign policy elite) geopolitics. It is possible sometimes that ―practical‖ serves ―formal‖ and ―popular‖ while ―formal‖ has ―practical‖ ramifications. The boundaries among the three categories are not fixed but rather intermingled. Such categorization nevertheless merits benefit for analysis.
This research is closest to practical geopolitics which also carries inroads to the realm of formal geopolitics. Practical geopolitics is what Dodds and Atkinson call ―everyday practice of statecraft whereby the world is spatialized into regions with imagined attributes and characteristics—leading to a mosaic of places of ‗danger‘, ‗threat‘, or ‗safety‘ that underpins foreign policy.127 For the purposes of this study, the narratives used by politicians, practitioners and intellectuals are the focal points of analysis. They are the ones through whom geopolitical representations are articulated in an attempt to set the limits and possibilities on foreign policy choices as well as to justify them.
126 O'LOUGHLIN, J., TUATHAIL (TOAL), G. O., & KOLOSSOV, V. (2005). p. 324.
127 DODDS, K., & ATKINSON, D. (2000). Geopolitical Traditions: A Century of Geopolitical Thought. London,
60
How geopolitical discourse shapes and is shaped by foreign policy is a major theoretical question. Nevertheless it is clear that these two are densely intertwined. As argued by Painter, it is through discourse that (foreign policy) is made meaningful and justified.128 Therefore, geopolitical representations of world politics (and one‘s place in it) as manifested in geopolitical discourses help constitute and legitimize foreign policy behaviour. Thus, geopolitical representations are instrumental in informing which policy options shall be preferred over others.
Toal notes that a geopolitical story-line is ―a relatively coherent foreign policy narrative and argument about a policy challenge that is defined in debate by competing antagonistic story- lines. They are discursively fashioned from geographical imaginations, traditions, visions and other aspects of geopolitical culture. In a debate, they help delimit the policy space within which a certain issue, event or drama is debated.‖129
The end product that is reflected in the geopolitical discourse is called geopolitical script. A geopolitical script is ―what foreign policy leaders agree to say and perform publicly about a foreign policy question‖,130 as defined by Toal. He argues that, geopolitical script is a
formulaic and diplomatic way of speech acting that sometimes articulates one geopolitical storyline to the exclusion of others but sometimes deliberately chooses not to decide between them and acts in a manner that retains ambiguity, flexibility and superficiality in making foreign policy.
128 PAINTER, J. (1995). Politics, Geography and Political Geography: A Critical Perspective. London, E. Arnold,
p.148.
129 Geopolitical storylines and scripts as discursive acts are eloquently elaborated in TOAL, G. (2004). Geopolitical
Structures and Cultures: Towards Conceptual Clarity in the Critical Study of Geopolitics in TCHANTOURIDZE, L. Geopolitics: Global Problems and Regional Concerns. Winnipeg, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, p.93-98.
61
Another aspect of geopolitical discourses is geostrategic discourse. As stipulated by Toal, it can be understood as a form of geopolitical discourse that makes explicit strategic claims about the material national security interests of the state across a world map characterized by state competition, threats and dangers.131 It is usually culminated by national security bureaucracies. Preoccupied with scenarios of state competition, war fighting, resource scarcity, pervasive danger and insecurity, the national security bureaucracy claims a privileged position for itself beyond established foreign politics on the basis of the claim that it addresses transcendent national interests and existential concerns.132 Toal suggests that geostrategic discourse can be conceived as operating the same way as “securitization” in the form of “geo-strategization”.133 ―It is making a discursive claim that a particular foreign policy crisis or challenge has the locational and transcendent material national interest qualities that make it ―strategic‖. In this perspective, geostrategic discourse is whatever intellectuals of statecraft and a state‘s power structure make of it.‖134
Concepts of Foreign Policy Analysis
What critical geopolitics brings to the foreign policy analysis is that traditional constructivism pays less attention to the relationship between power and space in the creation of not only national and sub-national but more so of transnational/geopolitical identity by focusing specifically on the (trans)national dimension of imaginative geographies.135 In terms of foreign policy analysis, ―critical geopolitics is thus located within the broader discussion of state sovereignty, spatial representation and identity formation simply because how discourses of representation are formed is central to the writing of foreign policy.‖136
As 131Op. cit. p.95. 132Ibid. 133Ibid, p.97. 134Ibid. 135AL-MAHFEDI. (2011).p.3.
136DODDS, K.-J. (1994). Geopolitics and Foreign Policy: Recent Developments in Anglo-American Political
62
Campbell argues, state identity is a by-product of prevalent geopolitical discourses and foreign policy is performed in response to the threats, whether real or interpretative/representational, to this identity. It is therefore a political practice which plays a principal role in constituting, producing, and maintaining identity in relation to differences/dangers/others.137 The way security and national interest are framed thus is informed by geopolitical/geographical imaginations, which are determined by identity perceptions as displayed in discourses.138 Identity, security, national interest and foreign policy are interdependently shaped by each other in the process of constructing spatial discursive formations. Therefore, geopolitical scripture translates into an act of drawing mental maps of danger, threat and security in constitution and justification of identities, interests and foreign policy.
As noted by Dodds, these practices of (re)presentation that constitute foreign policy are important in establishing ‗understandings‘: ways of seeing, knowing and speaking.139 In writing the story of space and foreign policy, conceptual abstractions such as identity, biases and perceptions are equally crucial as material factors like territorial borders, geographical situatedness and proximity. In this process, identity formation is not simply an act of attachment to a culture or civilization. More importantly, identity is spatially formed on the basis of a series of ‘exclusions‘, which demarcate the boundaries of the state (domestic- inside) and the international system (external-outside).140 In the words of Dodds, critical geopolitics ―is concerned as much with maps of meaning as it is with maps of states. The boundary-drawing practices … are conceptual and cartographic, imaginary and actual, social
137CAMPBELL, D. (1992). Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Press. p. 8
138Ibid. 139Ibid.
140WALKER, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge [England],
63
and aesthetic.‖141 Similarly, Campbell argues that ―foreign policy, in this understanding, is not
so much behaviour across boundaries. It is instead a specific form of boundary producing political performance. Foreign policy, then, is a political performance taking place in a historically carved out social space, and having, amongst its important effects, the constitution and reaffirmation of socially recognizable boundaries separating fields of practice on a global scale.‖142 Foreign policy is not only a physical but also a social boundary-
producing practice that enframes the state to contain challenges to the identity which results.143 As noted by Campbell, it is through this practice that ―boundaries are constructed, spaces demarcated, standards of legitimacy incorporated, interpretations of history privileged and alternatives marginalized.‖144 To sum up, foreign policy is about divisions of space and
identification of spheres of interest. In this vein, the research agenda of practical geopolitics is twofold; to critically investigate geographical depictions that constitute foreign policy and how the divide between the domestic and the international is actually articulated in foreign policy discourse.145
In terms of politics of identity, critical geopolitics renders repetition of themes as an effective method of constructing identity. As Dalby and Dodds note ‗repetition is an important facet of rendering particular understandings "common sense". The ideological production and reproduction of societies can, in part, be understood as the mundane repetition of particular geopolitical tropes which constrain the political imaginary‘,146 and hence limits of bounded
rationality for external action.
141 TUATHAIL, G. O., & DALBY, S. (1998). Rethinking geopolitics. London [etc.], Routledge. p.4. 142CAMPBELL, D. quoted in DODDS, K.-J. (1994). p.192.
143CAMPBELL, D. (1992). p. 76. 144Ibid. p.226.
145DODDS, K.-J. (1994).p.196.
146DALBY, S., & TOAL, G. Ó. (1996). The Critical Geopolitics Constellation: Problematizing Fusions of Geographical
64
Therefore, critical geopolitics does not analyse foreign policy by simply looking at actual practices but at the same time questioning how discursive representations of space are incorporated into foreign policy. That is because, as noted by Agnew and Corbridge, a simple description of a certain foreign policy situation is an act of geopolitics in itself.147 In so doing, certain assumptions about other states, peoples and regions are made. As noted by Sapiro, foreign policy is ‘the process of making the foreign or exotic, and thus different from the self, someone or thing. Given the usual esteem within which the self is constituted, the exoticizing of the ‗Other‘ almost invariably amounts to the constitution of the ‗Other‘ as a less than equal subject‘.148 Categorizing and labelling space in this manner is an act that brings ideas and
visions about that place and policies it follows. Those representations, whether in formal or practical assessments, ―play an important role in consolidating elite interpretative schemes and also in constituting political representation of places and peoples.149 By resorting to geopolitical representations, practitioners of statecraft try to legitimize a specific foreign policy position. Those who engage in such an act are as a result exposed to a set of policy possibilities and constraints. The way this spatial representative practice works can be analysed with reference to some key concepts in critical geopolitics as discussed hereafter.
The peculiarity about critical geopolitics is its authoritative rejection of agency-structure dichotomy. Critical scholars are dissatisfied with realist/neo-realist accounts which do not leave any room for human creativity. In this sense, an analysis of state behaviour based solely on the conditioning impact of systemic factors (structure) is not applicable in critical geopolitics. Instead, critical inquiry rests on the transformative ability of human-beings and on the proposition that collective human action leads to historical transformation in the system. As Amineh and Houweling put it;
147 AGNEW, J. A., & CORBRIDGE, S. (1995). Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory and International Political
Economy. London, Routledge. p.47.
148SHAPIRO, M. J. (1988). The Politics of Representation. University of Wisconsin Press. p.100. 149 DODDS, J.K. (1994). p.189.
65
―The representatives of critical geopolitics take state-society relations as the unit of analysis. According to this view state-society complexes come into interaction through their (foreign) polices. By these interactions they create a “system level of social order”. Since the mid-19th century, the system-level of social order is characterized by sequential industrialization of state-society complexes.‖150
Foreign policy practice then is a function of both internal and external dynamics. The internal dynamic is about how the world is spatialized and the place of one‘s own self as well as that of others is socially and constructively constituted/represented. This inevitably necessitates a closer scrutiny of domestic distribution of power as it is crucial in understanding whose representative images and discourses of the world are reflected onto foreign policy practice. The external dimension is about the foreign policy practices and geopolitical representations of other (most influential) states in the system.