As I suggested yesterday, The Revenge of Geography makes for compelling reading because of its reliance on assumptions that have wider resonance in contemporary (geo)political discourses. Ironically though, the argument presented by Kaplan takes politics out of international relations and geopolitics by making a series of claims about human nature, the state, and geography itself that can never be substantiated or verified. Anecdotal evidence--if one is willing to accept the veracity of the anecdotes offered by Kaplan--should not be taken as fact. So, in essence, what Kaplan does is present a series of highly politicized assumptions about the deterministic qualities of various structures like culture, tradition, and geography as though these qualities were uncontroversial facts hoping that the reader won't notice.
For example, a range of influential political geographers such as Simon Dalby, Klaus Dodds, John Agnew, David Campbell, and Gearoid O'Tuathail argue that there is nothing natural about 'geography' or cartographic representation. We all 'geograph' by constructing spatial relations amongst disparate entities, drawing specific meanings from these entities and relations, and then acting upon them, thereby confirming the 'naturalness' of these constructed understandings. To be clear, this does not mean that we socially construct physical topography. However, we do invest that physical topography with political meaning, whether it be by designating a specific feature as a hill (as opposed to a mountain) or by using the territorial boundaries of nation-states to delineate distinct spatial areas on global maps as opposed to other factors like ethnicity, religion, language, income, or areas where it snows or does not snow.
The assumptions held by Kaplan lend themselves to a political position that is fixated on identifying confrontations between communities so that disputes cease to be simply a matter of contending interests or differing points of view. Instead they take on the qualities of an 'eschatological culture' by framing the understanding of global politics in apocalyptic terms. Ken Booth has referred to this political ideology as the 'Cold War of the Mind'.
According to Booth, the Cold War of the Mind is underpinned by ethnocentrism, a crude version of political realism, ideological fundamentalism, and strategic reductionism.
First, as in all of his previous work to date, Kaplan is transparently ethnocentric. Like in The Coming Anarchy, he positions areas outside of the Western Europe and North America as the epicenter for danger. Second, the entire article is a-historical with no acknowledgement of the how the legacies of European colonialism and imperialism might be shaping the dynamics he wishes to identify as important. Given his championing of Mackinder and Victorian thinking, one wonders why the historical consequences of this world view are completely ignored? Could it be that they might be to blame for contemporary global issues as much--if not more--than the irrational crowds, technology transfers, and demographic pressures to which Kaplan wishes to pin blame?
The crude political realism that forms the foundation for The Revenge of Geography rests on the assumption that others need to be feared. And, it is only within the boundaries of (some) territorial states that we can find the order, peace, and security from those others that we need to fear.
The ideological fundamentalism is apparent by the way in which Kaplan treats the issue of Iraq. When 'we' (i.e., Western powers and their allies) cause chaos,death, and destruction, it is rational from first principles. These externalities derive from the drive to democratize or from the drive to be pragmatic. Thus, rather than simply 'telling it like it is', Kaplan is above all else an apologist for the Western war machine and its ongoing practices of imperialism.
Finally, Kaplan's argument takes on an aspect of strategic reductionism. For him, security is primarily determined by the impermeability of the borders of nation-states. Disorder and insecurity is to be contained outside of the state so that security, order, and stability can exist on the inside. Not only does this elide crucial questions about security for whom and for what purpose, but it assumes that states and borders actually provide security to those individuals contained within them. Millions of people who have been killed by their state and its security apparatus would probably disagree. So would those who in attempting to flee from oppression have been denied passage over international borders.
Tomorrow, I will analyze at the kind of 'politics' engendered by The Revenge of Geography.
The image above is by Kevin Dooley and is being displayed under the terms of a Creative Commons license.
