VISUALIZATION OF SPACE IN GEOPOLITICS: TO THE PROBLEM OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE METHOD
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2023-3-37-53
The article presents a comparative analysis of space visualization tools in the history of geopolitical science. Until the middle of the 20th century, there were two main approaches to space that accented various objects in the process of visualization. The founders of geopolitics Friedrich Ratzel and Rudolf Kjellen were influenced by organicism and social Darwinism, so they used figurative metaphors to explain the relationship between space and the state. Biological metaphors have been used as ontology of the state that led to the politicization of the natural characteristics of space and the depoliticization of really political phenomena and processes. The result was the emergence of political mythologems in science. Alfred Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Karl Haushofer studied the processes of international competition for world domination in their works. Geopolitical maps were used as visualization tools. The connection with geography brought their theoretical constructions closer to those of natural sciences and ensured compliance with the requirements of scientific rationality, which were required by positivism. A comparative analysis of geopolitical and geographical maps showed that geopoliticians “redrew” geographical maps in accordance with the main object of the study – the processes of the struggle of states for world space. Geopolitical maps focus the viewer’s attention on existing or possible areas of conflict of interest between competing powers in unstable regions of the world. Geopolitical maps describe or predict breaks in the global political space. They are able to attribute specific semantic content to the zones of space, as well as to the communities and identities included in them. Geopolitical maps, unlike geographical ones, do not exist without texts, since any of them is only an illustration of the scientist’s ideas. The problems of using geopolitical maps to interpret the processes of modernity were shown by the example of Mackinder’s heartland model. At the present stage, there are several key zones in the world, and the modern idea of the location of the heartland depends on the subjective positions of scientists. Attempts to bring the theory model in line with political reality lead to a significant distortion of the authentic model or a narrowing of the empirical field of Mackinder’s theoretical construction. Despite the existing problems and justified criticism, the rejection of Mackinder’s heritage would mean significant losses not only in the field of the history of geopolitical thought, but also for studies of competition for territorial control in the modern world. Modern methods of visualization in geopolitics were illustrated by Randall Collins’ theory of geopolitical dynamics. The review of the evolution of visualization methods in geopolitics led to the conclusion that the development of the scientific method proceeded from figurative metaphors to strict descriptive models built in the form of “if–then” statements that make nomological explanation and prediction possible.
Keywords: geopolitics, geopolitical maps, methods of geopolitics, concept of heartland, theory of geopolitical dynamics by Randall Collins
References:
Bakare, N., & Toor, M. R. (2019). Revisiting Mackinder’s Heartland Theory: Identifying the Emergence of a Complex Power Competition in the Indian Ocean Region. Przegląd Strategiczny, 12, 43–58.
Barthes, R. (2004). Mythologies. Izdatel’stvo Sabashnikovykh. (In Russian).
Carneiro, R.L. (1970). Theory of the Origin of the State. Science, 169, 733–738.
Cimek, G. (2020). The Impact of the Changing World Order on the Situation of Central and Eastern Europe. The International Journal of Social Quality, 2(10), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.3167/IJSQ.2020.100208
Collins, R. (2015). Macrohistory. Essays in Sociology of the Long Run. URSS, LENAND. (In Russian).
Daka, A. (2005). Mackinder’s Heartland and the Location of the Geopolitical Tetrahedron. Central Asia and the Caucasus, 4(40), 55–69. (In Russian).
Dodds, K. (2007). Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Eco, U. (2018). History of Illusions: Legendary Places, Lands and Countries. Slovo. (In Russian).
Gavrilenko, S. M. (2021). Thought experiment and cartography: points of convergence. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 62, 265–269. https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/62/26 (In Russian).
Gorbunov, V. S. (2017). Need of development of the border regions of the Russian Federation taking into account the geopolitical model of H. J. Mackinder. Moscow Economic Journal, 1, 153–158. (In Russian).
Haushofer, K. (2001). About geopolitics. Works of different years. Mysl’. (In Russian).
Hochberg, L., & Sloan, G. (2017). Mackinder’s Geopolitical Perspective Revisited. Orbis, 61(4), 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2017.08.007
Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R., Bartley, B., & Fuller, D. (2005). Thinking Geographically. Space, Theory and Contemporary Human Geography. Continnum.
Izgarskaya, A. (2002). Reconstruction of Geopolitical Concepts. In N. S. Rozov (Ed.), Macrodynamics. Patterns of Geopolitical, Social and Cultural Changes (pp. 5–158). Nauka. (In Russian).
Kefeli, I. F. (2022). Problems of Ensuring Russia’s Geopolitical Security. Materials of the Meeting of the All-Russian Scientific Webinar “Connecting Spaces” (26 November 2022). Respublica Literaria, 4(3), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.47850/RL.2022.3.4.181-209 (In Russian).
Kjellen, R. (2008). The State as a Living Organism. ROSSPEN. (In Russian).
Lavrenov, A. M. (2019). Lavrenov, A.M. (2019). The impact of H. Mackinder’s Geopolitical Theory on the Emergence of Threats to the National Security of the Russian Federation. Bulletin of the Russian nation. 4 (68), 79-89. (In Russian).
Mackinder, H. J. (1995). The Geographical Pivot of History. Polis. Political Studies, 4, 162–169. (In Russian).
Mäkinen, S. (2014). Geopolitics Teaching and Worldviews: Making the Future Generation in Russia. Geopolitics, 19, 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2013.847430
Matikeeva, S. (2005). Mackinder’s Legacy: Was It a Prophesy? Central Asia and the Caucasus, 4(40), 28–33. (In Russian).
Mazzucelli, C., Saunders, P. C., & Ma, Z. (2017). Central and Eastern Europe on the Eurasian Chessboard in the Global Century. Yearbook of the Institute of East-Central Europe, 2(15), 35–55.
Megoran, N., & Sharapova, S. (2005). Mackinder’s “Heartland”: A Help or Hindrance in Understanding Central Asia’s International Relations? Central Asia and the Caucasus, 4(40), 8–20. (In Russian).
Parker, G. (1976). The “Military Revolution” 1560-1660-a Myth? Journal of Modern History, 48, 195–214.
Pereira, P., Zhao W., Symochko, L., Inacio, M., Bogunovic, I., & Barcelo, D. (2022). The Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict will push back the sustainable development goals. Geography and Sustainability, 3, 277–287.
Rozov, N. S. (2002). Philosophy and theory of history. Book. 1: Prolegomena. Logos. (In Russian).
Sloan, G. (2020). Sir Halford Mackinder’s Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Centennial Appreciation. Orbis, 1(64), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2019.12.002
Stinchcombe, A. (1968). Constructing social theories. Univ. of Chicago Press.
( 341.01 kB ) 
( 328.7 kB )
Issue: 3, 2023
Series of issue: Issue 3
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 37 — 53
Downloads: 291