عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
What is the nature of geopolitics? Like most other disciplines, the history of geopolitics is dominated by such fundamental and abstract questions. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how we can avoid such positivistic questions. In this paper our fundamental premise is that "what is" can’t reveal the whole story and nature of geopolitics. As Derrida notes, this question is the instituting question of western philosophy.
Geopolitics as many have noted, is a term which is difficult to define. In conventional academic understandings, geopolitics concerns the geography of international politics, particularly the relationship between the physical environment and the conduct of foreign policy. Within political geography, the geopolitical tradition has long been opposed by a tradition of such positivistic approach. Needless to say such approach is basically problematic. Geography and geopolitics are very discursive and not separate from the social and, political and ideological dimensions of international politics. Geography is a social and historical discourse which is always bound up with questions of politics and ideology. Here we do avoid from traditional understandings of geography and geopolitics and have not eagerness to address any kind of definitions. There is no need to do so. As Foucault said; there is a will to essentiality which one should mistrust. By avoiding essentiality in geopolitics we mean it is much better to follow dialectical approaches to deal with geopolitical situations and problematic. The best title for such dealing with is geopolitics from a new perspective: decentralizing power/knowledge
Methodologically the critical approaches including; Hermeneutics, discourse analysis, genealogy and archaeology of knowledge has been applied.
Results and Discussion
Applying the hermeneutics approach and discourse analysis we are suggesting what geopolitics does not include rather than what is the nature of geopolitics. In fact we want to understand geopolitics according to interpretation rather than explanation. In this point of view geopolitics is no longer the practice of states and state-centric discipline. The concept of power is not just inside the structure of the state. The idea that all conflicts can be resolved in the notion of nation-state is nothing but what Lyotard called meta-narrative. Of course the concept of territory does still matter in geopolitics but social, economic and political life cannot be ontologically contained within the territorial boundaries of states through the methodological assumption of time-less space. The question of sovereignty, security and identity in the era of globalization is very challengeable. Also we are addressing that the concept of space is relative rather than absolute. It has shown that the term 'space' may be treated in a variety of ways and that the concept of space is itself multidimensional.
Deconstructionist and displacing approach of Geopolitics does not directly answer the question "what is" Geopolitics. As Derrida notes, this question is the instituting question of western philosophy. De-centralizing approach tends to displace and deconstruct this question to problematize its limits and conditions of possibility.