Introduction
Critical geopolitics focuses on the geographic assumptions and classifications that shape how politics are made worldwide. It aims to shed light on and explain the methods political players use to spatialize global politics and portray it as a “world” filled with specific types of regions. This line of analysis examines geopolitics as a profoundly ideological and politicized type of investigation rather than an objective examination of predetermined “geographical” facts. It explores how geographical assertions and assumptions are used in political discussions and political activity rather than the more conventional subject of how geography affects or may affect politics. In doing so, it aims to subvert standard geopolitical discourses by focusing on “the politics of the geographical specification of” rather than studying the geography of politics within predetermined, rational locations.
Geopolitics is, therefore, viewed as the study of strategically using geography to advance one’s interests. States may, for instance, exploit geography to their advantage in a military or economic conflict. The knowledge of how globalization affects international politics is another focus of geopolitics. By generating new financial and political possibilities as well as new economic challenges, globalization has significantly altered the geopolitics of many places. For instance, the growth of international commerce and investment has made it possible for governments to access resources and markets that were before inaccessible, while regional integration attempts have made it simpler for states to coordinate their policies (Dodds, 2019). Understanding how climate change affects international relations is another focus of geopolitics. Increased sea levels, changing climates, and an increase in natural catastrophes are already substantially influencing the geopolitical landscape. These factors can fundamentally alter a region’s political and economic conditions. As a result, governments are being forced to include climate change in their geopolitical plans to lessen its effects and take advantage of the opportunities it creates. However, even though the field of critical geopolitics lacks a precise definition, the different works within its scope all focus on how political action is linked to spatial determination. Geopolitics is, in general, a challenging and dynamic field of study that is vital to understanding the dynamics of international politics.
Historical Development of Geopolitics
In order to comprehend the conceptual and political issues of critical geopolitics, various studies analyze the tumultuous relationship between academic geography and traditional geopolitical thought. Geographical knowledge is strongly related to traditional geopolitics, which is understood to refer to the statist, Eurocentric, balance-of-power understanding of global politics that dominated most of the twentieth century. It dates back to the nationalism and imperialism of late nineteenth-century Europe, which gave rise to self-aware geopolitical analysis. Since the beginning, Geopolitics and the aspirations of European nations to compete have been interconnected. For instance, Halford Mackinder’s heartland theory and Friedrich Ratzel’s thoughts on living space were both influenced by common concerns about Germany’s place in European politics. Since the Geopolitics provided a privileged “scientific” viewpoint on international issues to many scholars both inside and outside of academic geography (Alami et al., 2022). The apparent (or geographic) facts of international politics seemed to be seen objectively, from “god’s eye” distance. According to this so-called classical geopolitics, politics is a territorial activity in which governments and countries naturally compete for control of territory and resources, much like evolutionary conflicts.
Since the Traditional geopolitics, a subfield of political geography, is concerned with examining the connection between political power and place, it aims to comprehend how geographical elements like resources, boundaries, and landscapes affect how governments behave politically and how they interact with one another on a global scale.
Traditional geopolitics frequently places a strong emphasis on how military power, geopolitical alliances, and the advancement of national interests shape international relations. Various techniques for geopolitical analysis, such as feminist geopolitics and critical geopolitics, have evolved in recent years that place a greater emphasis on social and cultural aspects. These methods look at how power is used and disputed through speech, identity, and representation, and they aim to question conventional geopolitical ideas.
In the light of shaping international relations, the traditional theory of geopolitics holds that a state’s position concerning other nations, regions, and resources may influence the course of its actions and policies. The assumption behind political geography is that one’s surroundings may affect their actions. In geopolitics, it is thought that a country’s physical location may impact its engagement in regional and global affairs when this notion is used on a global scale. Whether or not state officials are aware of these stimulants, it is thought that a place like this will influence choices and actions. States need to be capable to exist, and for them to develop, they need to be even stronger. In geopolitics, the state is viewed as an autonomous, self-sufficient actor with a distinct territory and population that it is sovereign over. This leads to a critical assumption that conventional geopolitics shares: the separation of high from low politics.
Introduction to Critical Geopolitics
Critical geopolitics adopts the epistemology of constructivist and poststructuralist to emphasize the influence of ideas, discourses, and power structures in influencing global politics; it investigates how international relations, symbols, and representations create and maintain power structures. In addition, classical geopolitics views politics as a territorial activity in which governments and countries naturally compete to control territory and resources.
Critical Geopolitics is crucial for governments to maximize their power and influence in the international arena, from studying the physical topography of an area to examining the impacts of technological advances and resources to comprehending the impact of culture and public opinion. States may ensure they stay competitive in the global system by continually evaluating and modifying their geopolitical strategy. To fully utilize their influence and authority in the international system, governments must be knowledgeable in the always-changing realm of geopolitics. People may better appreciate the opportunities and constraints governments encounter on a global scale by looking at how geographical resources, advancements in technology, society, and public opinion impact the geopolitical environment (Aman, 2019). States must also regularly assess and adapt their geopolitical strategy to compete in the global system. States can identify benefits and minimize risks in the global arena by having an in-depth understanding of geopolitics.
Critical geopolitics is a post-structural approach that maintains that geographical relationships and structures are unique to historical and cultural contexts, as opposed to having an apolitical effect on world politics, as conventional views of geopolitics would contend. The claim made by critical geopolitics is that the positions of nations, regions, and resources may influence the actions and policies of states. Political geographers believe that a person’s surroundings may affect how they behave. It is thought in critical geopolitics that a country’s physical location may affect its role in regional and global affairs when this idea is used on a global scale. Regardless of whether state officials are aware of these stimulants, it is thought that such a location will influence choices and behaviors.
On the other hand, traditional geopolitics equates nation with state, views them as biological beings, and continues to assume that countries are homogenous components that were before humanity and will continue to exist forever. Nations are symbolized by their states in the global arena; hence, nations themselves are not included in foreign policy discussions. Citizens of the state see all of the state’s operations in the international arena as legitimate. The worldwide arena is a place of high politics since the framework of the international field is chaotic, and survival is a state’s guiding principle.
Key Concepts and Theoretical Frameworks
Critical geopolitics’ key concept is that statecraft intellectuals create ideas about places, affecting and reinforcing their political practices and policy decisions. These concepts also have an impact on how individuals process their own beliefs about politics and localities. In order to evaluate the power dynamics behind these representations, critical geopolitics studies geographic discourses in the theoretical as well as practical aspects of international relations (Papic, 2020). The investigation of political speeches, policy reports, and popular culture have all been approached using the critical geopolitics method in various ways. More recently, researchers have worked to expand on the approach’s textual analysis roots to offer insightful assessments of geopolitics that comprehend how international politics are implemented, account for the many practices that make up the geopolitical, and offer broadened knowledge of agency that incorporates a variety of nonhuman actors in the theorizing of both the -politics and the geo- in geopolitical issues.
Poststructuralist theory is regarded as “truth” and “knowledge” in academia. To work and sustain the supremacy and influence of particular participants in international relations, it unquestionably accepts facts and beliefs. A good example of how the great thinkers advised people to utilize their knowledge of themselves and their surroundings to free themselves from ignorance and superstition is through debate. Poststructuralism questions whether it is possible to arrive at universal principles or truths since it holds that no universe exists independently of human perceptions (Morrow, 2018). These presumptions are significantly influenced by current beliefs about what is true, and they are typically supported by the opinions of people in positions of authority. The acceptance of specific knowledge as unquestionable reality is aided by discourses. The strength of dominant discourses lies in their capacity to exclude alternative options or points of view to the extent that doing so is regarded as illogical. This theory claims that it can identify an objective reality. Due to their inability or unwillingness to consider the true complexity of international relations, a significant number of other theories of international relations need to be more consistent with poststructuralism.
The basic idea of postcolonialism is the belief that colonial control and imperialism affect the whole world, not just the conquered nations. The postcolonial theory encompasses several theoretical frameworks in addition to its forms of critique. It is an interdisciplinary analytical and conceptual framework that incorporates vocabulary from literary works, anthropology, history, psychology, and sociological studies, among other disciplines but has employed these words in specialized and distinctive ways to designate different meanings and implications. The discourse of cultural imperialism, which may be seen in literary work and criticism and historical and cultural examination of artifacts and thoughts, is subject to postcolonial analysis (Zorko & Sršen, 2020). As a result, several terms and concepts that identify important theoretical concepts have been established and borrowed by postcolonialism.
It is necessary to assess what postcolonial approaches provide as an alternative, even while postcolonial concepts can offer a convincing account of how traditional geopolitical reasoning constrains traditional IR theories and renders them incapable of explaining world politics. Constructing a postcolonial ontological and epistemological framework from the canon of non-Western viewpoint this draws attention to attempts to overcome these contradictions and also draws attention to the variations between diverse postcolonial perspectives. Since they feel that prescriptive notions about what constitutes political stances have obscured their relevance, some postcolonial academics attempt to concentrate global politics on themes like culture, ethnicity, and daily life.
Case Studies
One of the most significant developments in contemporary international relations was the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Not just because it violated international norms and rules but also because of how it played out. Crimea makes for a very intriguing case study to examine for possible solutions since it is a region that is legally claimed by both Russia and Ukraine but is only claimed by Russia practically (Giumelli, 2017). Given the worldwide response to the war in the area and considering Russia’s role on the international scene, a resolution is crucial. The presence of a major military power like Russia will be essential as the world’s political environment continues to change from unipolar to multipolar and from west to east. Russia has a significant impact on both Crimea’s domestic stability and the international system’s stability; so, for the sake of peace and stability, strong ties with major world powers are essential.
Geopolitics aspires to include numerous analytic techniques from many social science domains rather than being considered a distinct social science. These may include elements like geography, human geography, economics, history, culture, and culture. Geopolitics seeks to stand back and observe situations from a broader aspect, in contrast to popular monocausal theories like realism and Marxism, which typically see problems through the prism of one topic, in this case, either military might or economics.
The modernist ontological viewpoint of traditional geopolitics views spatial reality as an impersonal, objective reality outside the observer. In contrast, critical geopolitics is grounded on a subjective reality of space and politics.
Critiques and Challenges
Researchers focus their investigation on the geopolitical discourses themselves in order to understand better the criticisms and challenges that critical geopolitics as an approach faces. The main concerns from this perspective are determining how discursive and geographical representations are created and how they interact with societal and political conceptions. Since it is anti-geopolitics, anti-cartographic, and anti-environmental, it is argued that critical geopolitics unduly restricts the broader application of geopolitics.
Critical geopoliticians have characterized their discourses as “anti” or “interventionist” due to the historical connections between classic geopolitics and state authority and imperialism (Bachmann & Moisio, 2020). In addition to keeping a safe distance from state power frameworks, anti-geopolitics actively work to change such institutions. Although they effectively changed the discourse in the geographical literature and solidified as a single academic “stream,” they were unsuccessful in fundamentally changing the prevailing hegemonic systems.
Additionally, critical geopolitics is anti-map. Radical geopoliticians disregard global positioning systems, computerized mapping, satellite imaging, geographic information systems, or any other geographic methods in their research. Maps are vital in geopolitics and crucial when understanding international conflict, although they are deliberately omitted in critical geopolitics.
It is stated that further research is needed to better understand the variety of geopolitical debates across nations and in other facets of social life. An essential component of that endeavor is the discussion of geopolitical agency, which is the ability of diverse groups to take part in and impact the creation of geopolitical discourses (Whittaker, 2019). There has been a noticeable change in favor of a more explicit explanatory approach to political processes in general and the political role within these systems. In order to examine the subject-making processes, the numerous lines of agency research all challenge the idea of pre-given political subjects. In the geographic organization of global politics, they all focus on nonstate and non-elite players. Critical geopolitics as a discipline has become more involved with the prosaic and ordinary geopolitics of daily life in addition to formal and practical geopolitical thinking.
Critical geopolitics and political geography argue that territoriality is not the only spatiality. Particular political actors, such as statecraft intellectuals, influence how social reality is constructed discursively. There is a large amount of literature on popular geopolitics, especially on oppositional geopolitics or anti-geopolitics, in addition to the study that empirically relies on the rhetorical tactics of intellectuals of statecraft. Feminist geopolitics focuses on the production of political subjects in regular political practice rather than the actions of elite agents. It is evident that the diversity of critical geopolitics is essential to its vitality and effectiveness. However, it is argued that critical geopolitics is more interested in how power relations function in specific locations than it is in power in general.
Impact on International Relations
Geopolitics examines how countries, businesses, terrorist groups, etc. try to advance their political goals by affecting global geography. Geopolitics studies the conflict between states and other international organizations over control of these entities. It is believed that controlling these groups would help countries and organizations achieve their goals (Koopman et al., 2021). The fact that geopolitics is always regarded from an international and global viewpoint suggests that the topics under discussion are related on a global scale.
Critical geopolitics’ diversity is crucial to its success and vitality. This field focuses on challenging the presumptions underlying geopolitical statements rather than developing fundamental texts. By making such efforts, critical geopolitics has grown from its beginnings in the poststructuralist, feminist, and postcolonial criticisms of classical geopolitics to become a significant aspect of contemporary human geography. Geopolitics is currently being studied seriously within the field of geography. Even approaches that are not explicitly referred to as “critical” draw on various anti-essentialist nonpositivist views to power, whether it be different schools of Marxism, feminism, postcolonial work, or global systems theory.
Through incorporating critical perspectives in understanding contemporary global issues, People can better comprehend how their own culture fits into the greater globe by adding critical viewpoints into their knowledge of present global challenges (Bachmann & Moisio, 2020). People also have the opportunity to cherish cultural variety and develop an awareness of different cultures by having this insight. Additionally, having a global viewpoint might help people become more aware of current affairs and international problems.
Conclusion
Understanding the processes of international politics requires knowledge of geopolitics. Through this, it is evident that people may better comprehend the opportunities and challenges nations encounter in international relations by looking at how physical geography, resources, technological advances, public opinion, international institutions, global processes, and ideology impact the geopolitical environment. Therefore, for governments to effectively use their influence and authority in the framework of international relations and succeed on the global stage, they must have a solid understanding of geopolitics.
Critical geopolitics is pertinent to policymaking since it may aid in dismantling the tenacity of such stereotyped geopolitical ideas and concepts in political and popular culture. It pushes strategic thinking to recognize the influence of ethnocentric cultural conceptions on our understanding of places and the conflicts taking place in them due to its sensitivity to spatial heterogeneity and critique of cultural ethnocentrism. Critical geopolitics is also concerned with how locations’ strategic importance changes in the world’s information age due to the compression of time and space innovations like global media networks.
References
Alami, I., Dixon, A.D., Gonzalez-Vicente, R., Babic, M., Lee, S.O., Medby, I.A. and Graaff, N.D., 2022. Geopolitics and the ‘new’state capitalism. Geopolitics, 27(3), pp.995-1023.
Bachmann, V. and Moisio, S., 2020. Towards a constructive critical geopolitics–Inspirations from the Frankfurt School of critical theory. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 38(2), pp.251-268.
Dodds, K., 2019. A Very Short Introduction to Geopolitics.
Giumelli, F. (2017). The Redistributive Impact of Restrictive Measures on EU Members: Winners and Losers from Imposing Sanctions on Russia. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(5), 1062-1080.
Koopman, S., Dalby, S., Megoran, N., Sharp, J., Kearns, G., Squire, R., Jeffrey, A., Squire, V. and Toal, G., 2021. Critical Geopolitics/critical geopolitics 25 years on.
Morrow, A.M. 2018. Introducing Poststructuralism in International Relations Theory. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/13/introducing-poststructuralism-in-international-relations-theo ry/
Palle, A., 2021. Bringing geopolitics to energy transition research. Energy Research & Social Science, 81, p.102233.
Papic, M., 2020. Geopolitical alpha: An investment framework for predicting the future. John Wiley & Sons.
Wernicke, M., 2020. Decolonising intercultural education: Colonial differences, the geopolitics of knowledge, and inter-epistemic dialogue: by Robert Aman, London, Routledge, 2019, 108 pp.,£ 36.99 (paperback), ISBN: 9780367182083.
Whittaker, N., 2023. Geopolitics and Identity in British Foreign Policy Discourse: The Island Race. Taylor & Francis.
Zorko, M. and Sršen, D., 2020. From a critique to self-evolving (inter) discipline: Critical geopolitics vs. popular geopolitics. Medjunarodni problemi, 72(1), pp.158-178.
write