The Structure of Political Geography

Julian Minghi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351473101
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This volume seeks to provide a sense of purpose and order to the study of political geography. The editors devise a conceptual structure for the field, bringing political geography into line with trends in contemporary geography as a whole and with other social sciences. Not only do the selections contain a wide variety of contributions from other fields, but the introductory essays and annotated bibliographies suggest related research. The structure of the book enjoys close parallels in other social sciences.The organization of the book reflects the editors' definitions and structuring of political geography. Part I, ""Heritage, "" includes works that have contributed to the theoretical development of the field. Part II, ""Structure, "" comprises the concern to which political geographers have devoted most of their past attention. Parts III and IV, ""Process"" and ""Behavior, "" form the subject where much future theoretical and practical effort is needed. Part V, ""Environment, "" provides the context in which spatial structure, process, and behavior occur.The Structure of Political Geography includes selections from sociobiology, history, international relations, political economy, political science, social psychology, and sociology. The classics in the field are an essential inclusion since the book would be incomplete without them. The selections in the volume, originally published in 1971, remain useful and pertinent to political geographers of diverse persuasion and to social scientists interested in geographical approaches. The fact that there is a clear focus and conceptual interdependence in political geography is the volume's greatest contribution.

PART I: HERITAGE

Introduction

Every social science attempts to trace its roots back into the past. Such roots give a discipline tradition and prestige as well as a perspective from which to view current developments and to draw a thematic continuity over the span of time. Geography is no exception to this rule, and its branch of political geography is able to draw upon a particularly rich “heritage” covering many centuries of ideas concerned with the spatial structure of political organization and process. The readings and essays in this part contain a sampling of this heritage over a period of about 2200 years, from Aristotle to the present generation.

Rather than being content merely to reiterate the “greats” of the past in review form, we have decided to include wherever possible a representative sample of the authors’ own writings. These are presented in chronological order, and, although there is not necessarily any logical and easily identifiable progression of thought from one selection to the next, it is hoped that the reader will be able to see the growth of a wide range of political-geographic notions in some kind of sequential order, and to evaluate for himself the relevance of these writings to the present status of the field as reflected in the remainder of this volume. Many of these concepts developed and utilized by authors in the selections on structure, process, behavior, and environment will have their direct antecedents in the notions introduced in the selections of this part.

It must be remembered that each writer discussed here was circumscribed in his thought patterns by the conventional wisdom of his own age and by the imperfect state of knowledge of much of the world outside his immediate environment. Furthermore, as most of the works were originally written in languages other than English (all but the last three selections fall into this category), we must assume that something has been lost in translation, certainly in style, and probably also in meaning.

Considering these restraints, it is remarkable how much of this heritage is directly relevant to political-geographic thought today. It will be seen that far from being a mere introductory and scene-setting exercise, this group of selections is an initial and essential element in any thorough consideration of the theory and practice of political geography.

Introduction to the Selections

We may usefully divide the discussion of the heritage of political geography into three basic parts or periods :

• Environmental-Political Relationships The Organic State and Geopolitics Studies of Political Areas

Although there is some overlap, these three divisions represent basically distinct periods during each of which the contributions to the field have been molded by the dominant theme of the period. Of the six selections, the first—Aristotle—falls into the period of environmental-political relationships; the next—Ratzel—is a central figure in the Organic State and Geopolitics period ; three— Whittlesey, Hartshorne, and Jones—serve best to illustrate the immediate background to the Political Areas period of this generation. The last reading is taken from an assessment of the field in the mid-1960’s by a committee of distinguished American geographers.

Normally included in any discussion of the heritage of political geography are the group of works which fall under the umbrella of “global strategic views” or “world equilibrium models.” Such well known theories as Mackinder’s Heartland, Haushofer’s Pan-regions, and Spykman’s Rimland all belong in this particular category. Although it is not in any way contested that such works are an integral and important part of past political-geographic literature, we have chosen in this volume to include a discussion of them with a few selections in the part on structure where they can be more meaningfully introduced within a general consideration of the structure of political geography as attempts at conceptualizing structures at the global scale.

Environmental-Political Relationships

In political geography there is a long-standing interest in the relationship between the environment, both in its natural state and as modified by man, and man’s political activity, including all aspects of political structure, process, and behavior. This ecological tradition is still strong today, although in much different form, as evidenced by the cluster of research in resource management studies discussed in the final part, Environment.

The earliest writings in political geography are in the ecological tradition and usually have a particularly deterministic or environmentalistic bent. The relationship is seen mainly in terms of a one-way cause and effect, with the political activity of man assumed, in large measure, to be strongly influenced by aspects of the physical environment, especially climate and topography. This particular viewpoint is known as environmental determinism, a form of determinism that dominated geographical thought until the close of the nineteenth century.

Two points should be kept in mind. Whereas all the writings discussed in this section on environmental-political relationships demonstrate various degrees and varieties of deterministic thinking, they also provide valuable exposure of a mass of ideas pertinent to political geography. By the same token, although we recognize a new period starting with Ratzel, many of the deterministic notions about the role of the environment in influencing politics continued to enjoy unquestioned popularity among political geographers well into this century.

Aristotle (383-322 b.c.), a citizen of Athens, wrote within the political environment of the city-state world of Ancient Greece situated on the northern littoral of the Eastern Mediterranean. In his volume on Politics¹ he presented a model of the “ideal” or perfect state. He fully recognized the theoretical limitations involved in this, and thus spoke in terms of an “approximation” of the ideal state. For Aristotle, the two major ingredients of this state were the size of population and the endowments of territory. In respect to population characteristics, he was well aware that absolute size meant little, and he discussed the political implications of size variation. For instance, he found that too many can be “ungovernable” and too few can create a liability for defense. Aristotle implied that a political consideration might set the ideal size of a population in that, for the “good life” in the political community, electors must be known to all, and hence “the largest number that can be taken in at a single view” is the optimum size. This is a somewhat literal translation (the “largest surveyable population” has also been used), and the concern is essentially with the requirement of shared values in political integration. In the modern industrial state, when one considers the innovations in mass communication, such as television, open to electors, this aspect of accessibility does not seem too critical, yet it remains a crucial variable in the political integration of many new states in the underdeveloped world which more often than not possess poor communication networks.

The key to success in terms of territorial endowment, Aristotle felt, was the correct use of property and wealth with an aim toward achieving self-sufficiency, which sounds like an early call for state planning tending toward autarchy.

On the question of siting the capital city within the state, he was aware of the need for compromise between strategic considerations of defense from outside attack, and those of nodality for successful hinterland relationships.

Also included is an interesting observation on the notion of territoriality. Aristotle insisted that all members of the army must be citizens in that they are to fight on and to defend their own state’s territory, while the navy, operating outside the state’s territory, can be made up of non-citizens.

Aristotle’s ethnocentricism is manifest in his deterministic explanation of the ideal balance between what he called “spirit” and intelligence resulting from the climatic regime of the Hellenic states, and, by the same token, the imbalances which occurred in other parts of the then-known world due to climates’ being too hot (not enough spirit) or too cold (a lack of intelligence). These notions were generally put forward two generations earlier by the physician Hippocrates (460–376 b.c.) (see Part V, Environment), which lends further proof that they formed part of the conventional wisdom of scientific research in ancient Greece. It will be seen that environmental determinism and ethnocentricism are persistently interrelated throughout this period.

Aristotle considered the various functions of the state with discussions of the location and morphology of capital cities, and concluded with an assessment of fortified as opposed to unfortified boundaries.

In short, Aristotle introduced many of the ideas that we shall later find have become important concepts in the field of political geography. These include notions of ideal sizes of populations and area for political viability and their relationship to changing technology, the distributional characteristics of the resident population, the locational and morphological problems of the capital city, including strategic and economic considerations, boundaries-versus-frontiers as limits of national space, problems related to the spatial integration of the state, and also notions of coexistence and interdependence within a larger system, both in the Hellenic sphere, and, under the assumptions about the impact of temperature on political behavior, in a “global” pattern.

Strabo (63 B.C–24 A.D.), a Greek scholar and traveler writing at the height of the Roman Empire, was strongly influenced, as was Aristotle, by his own environment and times. In his work entitled Geography² he examined the prerequisites for the successful functioning of a large political unit. He came to the conclusion that a strong central government and a single ruling head of state were essential ingredients for success. Given the political environment of the times, it is not surprising that Strabo should conclude that Italy, the core of the Roman Empire, with its central location in the then-known world in the Mediterranean, its “ideal” climatic regime, and its balance of mixed resources, was best suited to fill this role. Again, ethnocentricism coupled with inherited deterministic notions concerning environmental-political relationships account for these conclusions.

Ibn-Khaldūn (writing between 1382-1405) was an Arab philosopher and historian. His Muqaddimah (or Introduction to History)³ is the most detailed autobiography available in medieval Muslim history and reflects among other things the political-geographic thinking of the late fourteenth-century Arab world.

As with Aristotle’s emphasis on city-states, Ibn-Khaldūn concentrated on the most powerful units in the political hierarchy of his own times—the tribe and the city—which were epitomized in the struggle between nomadic and sedentary states. Both Bedouins (nomadic or savage) and urban (sedentary) peoples were considered “natural” and interrelated groups. Ibn-Khaldūn explained their differences deterministically in terms of choice of livelihood : agriculture and animal husbandry necessitate desert life, while commerce and industry demand an urban location. Both groups, however, were held to be related on the evolutionary scale, with the Bedouins of the desert preceding the urban folk. The latter, descendants of immigrant nomads, had reached the last stage of civilization in their cities and hence were at the point where decay sets in.

Although cultural geographers may argue about the strict accuracy of this evolutionary idea, it was, at least, an attempt to link the Bedouin and urban dweller in time and space.

Ibn-Khaldūn also discussed the group’s functioning in space, and it is here that the notions of environmental-political relations and of territoriality come into play. The nomad, because of his desert environment, operated in small, mobile groups, giving him the qualities of courage and alertness, and also imposing the necessity of maintaining loyalties in a closely knit group of common descent. There were few territorial restrictions as a “savage” nation extended over territory at will, for there was no homeland, core of agricultural fertility, or capital city around which to cluster or with which to identify.

Sedentary states by contrast represented immobile concentrations of wealth and population and, lacking common lineage, were without tribal cohesion. Hence they had to devise new and complex systems of political organization for security against attack and for their own self-government. This concern with “group spirit” continued the tradition of interest in political integration earlier shown by Aristotle.

Where contiguous, the two types of states were interdependent not only in an evolutionary sense, but also functionally. The sedentary state dominated in this functional relationship both economically and politically by manipulation of factional disputes among tribal states, imposition of head taxes, the introduction of a money economy, and by restrictions on free migration. This trend, seen six centuries ago, is still prevalent in many areas of the Sanaran edge and in South Central Asia.

The major notions arising from Ibn-Khaldūn’s discussion relate, then, to the contrast among interdependent, contiguous, and genetically interrelated states in terms of their distinctive environmental-political relationships. These in turn lead to a major concern with political integration and disintegration. Furthermore, one of the first “life cycles of the state” formulated can be attributed to Ibn-Khaldūn.

Both Bodin (1530–1596) and Montesquieu (1689–1755) had a primary interest in the nation-state. Bodin was writing in a Europe that was slowly emerging from the restrictions on political thought imposed by religious domination throughout the Dark Ages. In his Six livres de la République⁴ he expressed ideas not unlike those of Aristotle and Ibn-Khaldūn. He held that climate and topography are the chief determinants of national character, and that, in turn, the laws of states vary according to differences in national character. Thus a causal relationship was drawn between the physical environment and the political system. Refinement of the earlier theories, through greater knowledge about the rest of the world which was being rapidly “discovered” by Europeans at this time, enabled Bodin, and later Montesquieu, to generalize from more cases and also provided a basis for comparative analysis of differences both in aspects of the physical environment and in political systems from region to region.

The basic assumption about the crucial role of the physical environment led to the deterministic conclusion that, while man has certain choices available to him and can thus operate and reason independently to some degree, nature dominates man’s will in terms of his political behavior, character, and works.

Montesquieu’s ideas⁵ were, as one would expect, based upon much more detailed and widely drawn scientific evidence of climatic effects than those of earlier writers. His assumptions about the role of climate in influencing human characteristics and behavior were based upon theories of human physiology prevalent at the time. Simply stated, these theories led to the conclusion that warm climates tend to favor despotism and slavery, and colder climates encourage democracy and liberty. This led to a “global” view which held that “freedom” tends to increase with distance from the Equator, and helped Montesquieu to expound a theory of Asian conquest and despotism through history. Unlike Europe, Asia is a continent without a temperate zone, and whereas Europe’s strength lay in its freedom, Asia’s weakness was its chronic slavery. This fact, coupled with the nature of Asia’s terrain, more open with fewer natural barriers than in Europe, determined that power in Asia would always be despotic, for it was through slavery that political fragmentation was avoided, and fragmentation would be inconsistent with the nature of the country, i.e. unnatural. Africa and America, from Montesquieu’s mid-eighteenth century viewpoint, w...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I. Heritage
• Part II. Structure
• Part III. Process
• Part IV. Behavior
• Part V. Environment
• Appendix: Aids to Research in Political Geography,Jeanne X. Kasperson
• Name Index
• Subject Index