In this lesson, we will try to further understand the key elements of geopolitics discussed in the previous lessons (geopolitical practices and representations of those practices) by exploring the concepts of “the nation,” “nation-state” and “the state.” We will subsequently discuss the geopolitics of nationalism by investigating national identity construction and also the process of “ethnic cleansing.” Further, we will analyze how masculinity/femininity are incorporated into concepts of nationalism and geopolitical code. Finally, we will deconstruct the binaries that underlie the geopolitics of national security.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
Please see your Canvas course space for a complete listing of this lesson's required readings, assignments, and due dates.
If you have any general course questions, please post them to our Course Questions Discussion located in the General Information Module in Canvas. I will check that discussion forum regularly to respond as appropriate. While you are there, feel free to post your own responses and comments if you are able to help out a classmate.
Please begin by reading Chapter 4 of Flint, C. (2016). Introduction to geopolitics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
What is a State?
A State is an independent, sovereign government exercising control over a certain spatially defined and bounded area, whose borders are usually clearly defined and internationally recognized by other states.
States try to form nations within their borders (through symbols, education, ‘national interest,’ etc.).
So, what is a Nation?
A nation is a group of people who see themselves as a cohesive and coherent unit based on shared cultural or historical criteria. Nations are socially constructed units, not given by nature. Their existence, definition, and members can change dramatically based on circumstances. Nations in some ways can be thought of as “imagined communities” that are bound together by notions of unity that can pivot around religion, ethnic identity, language, cultural practice and so forth. The concept and practice of a nation work to establish who belongs and who does not (insider vs. outsider). Such conceptions often ignore political boundaries such that a single nation may “spill over” into multiple states. Furthermore, states ≠ nations: not every nation has a state (e.g., Kurds; Roma; Palestine). Some states may contain all or parts of multiple nations.
And what about a Nation-State?
A Nation-State is the idea of a homogenous nation governed by its own sovereign state—where each state contains one nation. This idea is almost never achieved.
Nationalism is the idea that cultural identity should lay the foundation for a state. It is an imagined community unified around a common identity. It is the process of nation-state building. That is to say, nationalism is the process of unifying people who live within a particular territory around a shared identity. Flint explores two processes of nationalism: top-down and bottom-up.
Top-down nationalism refers to the role of the state in creating a sense of a singular, unified national identity.
The following video “Crash Course” on Nationalism provides some good detail, information, and a case study (of Japan) on top-down nationalism:
Transcript of Samurai, Daimyo, Matthew Perry, and Nationalism: Crash Course World History #34 Video
Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today we’re going to talk about Nationalism, the most important global phenomenon of the 19th century and also the phenomenon responsible for one of the most commented upon aspects of Crash Course: my globes being out of date. USSR: not a country. Rhodesia? South Vietnam? Sudan with no South Sudan? Yugoslavia? Okay, no more inaccuracies with the globes. Ugh, the little globes! This one doesn't know about Slovakia. This one has East frakking Pakistan. And this one identifies Lithuania as part of Asia. Okay, no more globe inaccuracies. Actually, bring back my globes. I feel naked without them.
[Intro music]
So, if you’re into European history, you’re probably somewhat familiar with nationalism and the names and countries associated with it. Bismarck in Germany, Mazzini, and Garibaldi in Italy, and Mustafa Kemal (aka Ataturk) in Turkey. But nationalism was a global phenomenon, and it included a lot of people you may not associate with it, like Muhammad Ali in Egypt and also this guy. Nationalism was seen in the British Dominions, as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand became federated states between 1860 and 1901. I would say independent states instead of federated states, but you guys still have a queen. It’s also seen in the Balkans, where Greece gained its independence in 1832 and Christian principalities fought a war against the Ottomans in 1878, in India where a political party, the Indian National Congress, was founded in 1885, and even in China, where nationalism ran up against the dynastic system that had lasted more than 2000 years. And then, of course, there are these guys, who in many ways represent the worst of nationalism, the nationalism that tries to deny or eliminate the difference in the efforts to create a homogeneous mythologized unitary polity. We’ll get to them later, but it’s helpful to bring them up now just so we don’t get too excited about nationalism.
Okay, so,before we launch into the history, let’s define the modern nation-state. Definitions are slippery but for our purposes, a nation-state involves a centralized government that can claim and exercise authority over a distinctive territory. That’s the state part. It also involves a certain degree of linguistic and cultural homogeneity. That’s the nation part. Mr. Green, Mr. Green! By that definition, wouldn't China have been nation state as early as, like, the Han dynasty? Dude, Me from the Past, you’re getting smart. Yeah, it could be, and some historians argue that it was. Nationhood is really hard to define. Like, in James Joyce’s Ulysses, the character Bloom famously says that a nation is the same people living in the same place. But, then, he remembers the Irish and Jewish diasporas, and adds, or also living in different places. But let’s ignore diasporas for the moment and focus on territorially bound groups with a common heritage. Same people, same place. So how do you become a nation? Well, some argue it’s an organic process involving culturally similar people wanting to formalize their connections. Others argue that nationalism is constructed by governments, building a sense of patriotism through compulsory military service and statues of national heroes. Public education is often seen as part of this nationalizing project. Schools and textbooks allow countries to share their nationalizing narratives. Which is why the once and possibly future independent nation of Texas issues textbooks literally whitewashing early American history. Still other historians argue that nationalism was an outgrowth of urbanization and industrialization, since new urbanites were the most likely people to want to see themselves as part of a nation. For instance, Prague’s population rose from 157,000 to 514,000 between 1850 and 1900, at the same time that the Czechs were beginning to see themselves as separate from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Which is a cool idea, but it doesn't explain why other, less industrialized places like India also saw a lot of nationalism. The actual business of nationalization involves creating bureaucracies, new systems of education, building a large military, and, often, using that military to fight other nation states, since nations often construct themselves in opposition to an idea of otherness. A big part of being Irish, for instance, is not being English. So emerging nations had a lot of conflicts, including: The Napoleonic wars, which helped the French become the French. The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which helped Indians to identify themselves as a homogeneous people. The American Civil War. I mean, before the Civil War, many Americans thought of themselves not as Americans but as Virginians or New Yorkers or Pennsylvanians. I mean, our antebellum nation was usually called “these united states,” after it became “the United States.” So, in the US, nationalism pulled a nation together, but often, nationalism was a destabilizing force for multi-ethnic land-based empires. This was especially the case in the Ottoman empire, which started falling apart in the 19th century as first the Greeks, then the Serbs, Romanians and Bulgarians, all predominantly Christian people, began clamoring for and, in some cases, winning independence. Egypt is another good example of nationalism serving both to create a new state and to weaken an empire. Muhammad Ali (who was actually Albanian and spoke Turkish, not Egyptian Arabic) and his ruling family encouraged the Egyptian people to imagine themselves as a separate nationality. But okay, so nationalism was a global phenomenon in the 19th century and we can’t talk about it everywhere. So, instead, we’re going to focus on one case study. Japan. You thought I was going to say Germany, didn't you? Nope. You can bite me, Bismarck.
Japan had been fragmented and feudal until the late 16th century when a series of warrior landowners managed to consolidate power. Eventually, power came to the Tokugawa family who created a military government or bakufu. The first Tokugawa to take power was Iyeasu, who took over after the death of one of the main unifiers of Japan, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, sometimes known as “the monkey,” although his wife called him, and this is true, “the bald rat.” In 1603 Ieyasu convinced the emperor, who was something of a figurehead, to grant him the title of “shogun.” And for the next 260 years or so, the Tokugawa bakufu was the main government of Japan. The primary virtue of this government was not necessarily its efficiency or its forward-thinking policies, but its stability. Stability: Most underrated of governmental virtues. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The Tokugawa bakufu wasn't much for centralization, as power was mainly in the hands of local lords called daimyo. One odd feature of the Tokugawa era was the presence of a class of warriors who by the 19th century had become mostly bureaucrats. You may have heard of them, the samurai. One of the things that made this hereditary class so interesting was that each samurai was entitled to an annual salary from the daimyo called a stipend. This privilege basically paid them off and assured that they didn't become restless warriors plaguing the countryside —that is, bandits. We tend to think of samurai as noble and honorable, but urban samurai, according to Andrew Gordon’s book A Modern History of Japan, "were a rough-and-tumble lot. Samurai gang wars – a West Side Story in the shadows of Edo castle – were frequent in the early 1600s.” And you still say that history books are boring. As with kings and lesser nobles anywhere, the central bakufu had trouble controlling the more powerful daimyo, who were able to build up their own strength because of their control over local resources. This poor control also made it really difficult to collect taxes, so the Tokugawa were already a bit on the ropes when two foreign events rocked Japan. First was China’s humiliating defeat in the Opium Wars, after which Western nations forced China to give Europeans special trade privileges. It was a wake-up call to see the dominant power in the region so humbled. But even worse for the Tokugawa was the arrival of Matthew Perry. No, Thought Bubble. Matthew Perry. Yes. That one. The tokugawa are somewhat famous for their not-so-friendly policy toward foreigners— especially western, Christian ones— for whom the penalty for stepping foot on Japanese soil was death. The tokugawa saw Christianity in much the same way that the Romans had: as an unsettling threat to stability. And in the case of Matthew Perry, they had reason to be worried. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So the American naval commodore arrived in Japan in 1853 with a flotilla of ships and a determination to open Japan’s markets. Just the threat of American steam-powered warships was enough to convince the bakufu to sign some humiliating trade treaties that weren't unlike the ones that China had signed after losing the Opium Wars. And, this only further motivated the daimyo and the samurai who were ready to give the Tokugawa the boot. Within a few years, they would.
So what does have to do with nationalism? Well, plenty. First off, even though the Americans and the Japanese didn't go to war (yet), the perceived threat provided an impetus for Japanese to start thinking about itself differently. It also resulted in the Japanese being convinced that if they wanted to maintain their independence, they would have to re-constitute their country as a modern nation-state. This looks a lot like what was happening in Egypt or even in Germany, with external pressures leading to calls for greater national consolidation. So, the Tokugawa didn't give up without a fight, but the civil war between the stronger daimyo and the bakufu eventually led to the end of the shogunate. And in 1868, the rebels got the newly enthroned Emperor Meiji to abolish the bakufu and proclaim a restoration of the imperial throne. Now, the Emperor didn't have much real power, but he became a symbolic figure, a representative of a mythical past around whom modernizers could build a sense of national pride. And in place of bakufu, Japan created one of the most modern nation-states in the world. After some trial and error, the Meiji leaders created a European style cabinet system of government with a prime minister and, in 1889, promulgated a constitution that even contained a deliberative assembly, the Diet, although the cabinet ministers weren't responsible to it. Samurai were incorporated into this system as bureaucrats and their stipends were gradually taken away. And soon, the Japanese government developed into, like, something of a meritocracy. Japan also created a new conscript army.
Beginning in 1873, all Japanese men were required to spend 3 years in the military. The program was initially very unpopular— [shocker] there were more than a dozen riots in 1873 and 1874 in which crowds attacked military registration centers. But eventually, serving in the army created a patriotic spirit and a loyalty to the Japanese emperor. The Meiji leaders also instituted compulsory education in 1872, requiring both boys and girls to attend four years of elementary school.
Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter?
An Open Letter to Public Education. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a graduation hat. Thanks, Meredith the Intern, for letting me borrow your graduation hat.
Dear Public Education, When you were introduced in Japan, you were very unpopular because you were funded by a new property tax. In fact, you were so unpopular that at least 2,000 schools were destroyed by rioters, primarily through arson. Stan, it doesn't look good when you bring it in close like that. I look like a 90-year-old swimmer. And even though public education is proved extremely successful lots of people still complain about having to pay taxes for it. So let me explain something, public education does not exist for the benefit of students or for the benefit of their parents. It exists for the benefit of the social order. We have discovered as a species that it is useful to have an educated population. You do not need to be a student or have a child who is a student to benefit from public education. Every second of every day of your life, you benefit from public education. So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools even though I don’t personally have a kid in school. It’s because I don’t like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people. Best Wishes, John Green.
In Japan, nationalism meant modernization, largely inspired by and in competition with the West. So the Meiji government established a functioning tax system, they built public infrastructures like harbors and telegraph lines, invested heavily in railroads, and created a uniform national currency. But the dark side of nationalism began to appear early on. In 1869, the Meiji rulers expanded Japan’s borders to include the island of Hokkaido. And in 1879, they acquired Okinawa after forcing its king to abdicate. In 1874, Japan even invaded Taiwan with an eye towards colonizing it, although they weren't successful. And, in these early actions, we already see that nationalism has a habit of thriving on conflict. And often the project of creating a nation state goes hand in hand with preventing others from doing the same. This failure to imagine the other complexly isn't new, but it’s about to get a lot more problematic as we’ll see next week when we discuss European imperialism.
Thanks for watching.
Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. We’re ably interned by Meredith Danko, and our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Also, the show was written by my high school history student John Green and myself, Raoul Meyer. Last week’s phrase of the week was "Bearded Marxist" If you’d like to guess at this week’s phrase of the week or suggest future ones, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, Don’t Forget to be awesome. [outro]
Bottom-up nationalism refers to a politics of violent nationalism where the goal is to create a “pure” nation-state where only one culture or national group exists. Flint discusses a few types of this bottom-up nationalism through examples of ethnic cleansing by utilizing figures 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 to illustrate tactics of expulsion, eradication, and expansion to create a “pure” nation-state.
Flint highlights the case study of the Russian invasion of Chechnya to discuss bottom-up nationalism. An additional example would be Rwanda.
We will go into more depth about the Rwandan Genocide in Lesson #10. So, for now, read The Rwandan Genocide (2009) [1] for a history of the Rwandan genocide to understand how it is an example of bottom-up nationalism.
Mother Politics: Anti-colonial Nationalism and the Woman Question in Africa by Joyce M. Chadya, Journal of Women's History 15.3 (2003) 153-157:
All nationalisms are gendered, . . . they represent relations to political power . . . legitimizing, or limiting, people's access to the rights and resources of the nation state.– Anne McClintock
Anne McClintock's comment on nationalism succinctly captures the position of women during anti-colonial nationalism on the African continent. Across the continent, especially following World War II, women played a crucial role in the ousting of colonial/apartheid minority governments. However, the top leadership of most, if not all, of the nationalist movements was exclusively male. There was, therefore, a gender bias right from the creation of nationalist movements. This scenario was to be replicated in independent Africa when most of the senior government posts were (and continue to be) held by men. Women still find themselves at the margins of political and economic decisions at the party and government levels.
Gendered divisions of labor have historically placed women in the private or domestic spheres—as homemaker, nurturer, and educator. During wartime, women are called upon to serve the nation through constructions of these gendered identities as you see in the following propaganda posters:
Thus, a woman’s role in the private sphere is utilized to create a sense of national unity, rallying for the cause of war. Sending their husbands, sons, and fathers off to war, women are encouraged to support the national war agenda through their consumer choices (or ability to ration said choices), domestic habits and production, and so forth.
The purported vulnerability of women to the enemy is also part of the rally to war. The figure below presents an image of a naked and seemingly unconscious woman being carried away by a caricature of a Japanese soldier. Such wartime propaganda utilizes gendered constructions of female vulnerability and purity in conjunction with a depraved, immoral enemy to embolden our soldiers and allies to act in defense of the defenseless.
Nationalism during war can work to temporarily disrupt gendered divisions of labor as well. As in the case of Rosie the Riveter (figure below) and the women featured in the Hollywood Film A League of their Own, women are called upon to fill traditionally male roles and occupations in an effort to also help with the war effort.
While these transgressions of traditional gender roles do temporarily offer women opportunity to participate more fully in the public sphere, once the war is over and the men come home, women are thanked for their service to country and directed back to the domestic/private sphere.
NARRATOR: Girls playing pro ball? You bet. Back in 1943 when the boys went off to war, baseball and chewing gum tycoon Bill Wrigley decided to keep the parks filled by creating the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. Even though the league lasted for 12 seasons, very few people knew about it.
[BACKGROUND YELLING]
Now, director Penny Marshall brings us the long overdue story of these remarkable girls of summer in Columbia Pictures' new comedy, A League of Their Own. The all-star lineup includes Tom Hanks as the manager, the catcher, Geena Davis, the pitcher, Lori Petty.
LORI PETTY: I made it, a Rockford Peach.
NARRATOR: The scout, Jon Lovitz.
JON LOVITZ: Are you coming? See, how it works is the train moves, not the station.
NARRATOR: Rosie O'Donnell at the hot corner, and batting cleanup, Madonna.
ANNOUNCER: No wonder they call her All the Way Mae.
PRODUCER: 189 Charlie, take one, aim one.
PENNY MARSHALL: There were scouts going around. They went around to various factory leagues and softball leagues. They were made to try out in Wrigley Field. It started with four teams, 16 girls on a team, and drafted them.
JON LOVITZ: Hey.
GEENA DAVIS: Hey yourself.
JON LOVITZ: I saw you playing today. Not bad. Not bad. You ever hear of Walter Harvey? Makes Harvey Bars.
GEENA DAVIS: Yeah. I feed them to the cows when they're constipated.
JON LOVITZ: He's starting a girls' baseball league. Want to play?
GEENA DAVIS: Huh?
JON LOVITZ: Nice retort. It's a real league, professional.
LORI PETTY: Professional baseball?
JON LOVITZ: They'll pay you, 75 dollars a week.
LORI PETTY: We only make 30 dollars at the dairy.
JON LOVITZ: Well, then, this would be more, wouldn't it?
GEENA DAVIS: My sister and I are both picked for the team. And we feel like misfits a little bit, you know, like we have this skill that we have never had anything to do with. And then this amazing thing comes along, this baseball leagues, that gives us in a way to fulfill ourselves.
MADONNA: What are you looking at?
ROSIE O'DONNELL: Yeah, what are you looking at?
LORI PETTY: All these girls going to be in the league?
[CHUCKING]
MADONNA: You know, they got over 100 girls here, so, um, some of yous are going to have to go home.
ROSIE O'DONNELL: Yeah, sorry about that.
MADONNA: Come on, Doris.
ROSIE O'DONNELL: Some people are jerks.
LORI PETTY: What do you mean, some of us?
MADONNA: Do it. OK, some of them are going home. Hey,
ROSIE O'DONNELL: How did you do that?
SPEAKER 1: One of the problems that we had right off the bat was finding girls that had some ability on the baseball diamond. That was a long process. We screened an awful lot of girls.
PENNY MARSHALL: Out here in Los Angeles, they said the batting cages never did so much business. Every actress in town was at the batting cage, hitting the balls.
TOM HANKS: This is the best gig to be in a position where I get paid to come and put on a uniform and run around the ball field as much as I want to. It's a man's fantasy baseball experience.
GEENA DAVIS: Well, yeah. We have a very funny scene in the movie where he's been a bad coach to us. So I sort of have taken over. And I give all the signs and do the coaching basically. Tom doesn't like the play that I've called. So we're giving opposing signs and things. It was fun.
TOM HANKS: Hey, who's the damn manager here? am.
GEENA DAVIS: Then act like it, you big lush.
ROSIE O'DONNELL: Ho, ho, ho, ho. You tell him, Dottie.
TOM HANKS: Play ball. I play Jimmy Dugan, six time National League home run champion. He hates being here. And he doesn't want to be here. And he's not going to take it seriously. And.
[CRYING]
Are you crying? Why are you crying? There's no crying in baseball.
PENNY MARSHALL: Let me see what happens, Rosie and Madonna.
MADONNA: I actually never played baseball my entire life. So I had to start from scratch. I have a problem that it's that I have a lot of years of dance training. And Penny was always screaming at me that I was playing baseball like a dancer.
TOM HANKS: In the early going, yeah, her throwing technique was pretty much-- it was a choreographed step, step, kick, fling kind of thing.
MADONNA: I'm going to kill Tom for saying that about me.
TOM HANKS: But she's better now.
PENNY MARSHALL: I had teamed her up with Rosie O'Donnell. I said, OK, you two are going to be best friends in the movie. So get to know each other.
MADONNA: What if at a key moment in the game, my uniform bursts open. And oops, my bosoms come flying out.
ROSIE O'DONNELL: You think there are men in this country who ain't seen your bosoms?
PENNY MARSHALL: Cut. Nice.
ROSIE O'DONNELL: She's OK. There's my girl. You're all right. Every so often, she starts acting like a big superstar, you know, big pop movie icon, star celebrity, singer thing. And that's when, you know, Penny looks at me and goes, Rosie, take her down. Bam, right down. She's humbled.
MADONNA: Rosie is a great baseball player like. And I just, I'm so glad she's here, because she coaches me on everything.
ROSIE O'DONNELL: Now I'll show you how.
MADONNA: OK.
[LAUGHTER]
ROSIE O'DONNELL: You know, I'm working on it. We've got about five more weeks. I'm thinking I'll have it done by the end of the--
PENNY MARSHALL: She was a real good sport. She worked so hard. She would run every morning. Then she'd work out playing ball. Then at night, she'd jitterbug.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
SPEAKER 2: The official stance of the league was that they had no social life, that they would-- it was basically a convent. The girls were sent to charm school. Not too patronizing, right?
INSTRUCTOR: Gracefully and grandly. Gracefully and posture.
SPEAKER 2: They had people from Helena Rubinstein come out, give them all new hairdos.
INSTRUCTOR: And sit, right over left. Legs are always together. A lady reveals nothing.
[GIGGLING]
LORI PETTY: It was just hysterical to me. But that was really important in the '40s, that you're, you know, a lady. And a lady reveals nothing. They played three games in two days. And they always had to take all these showers and set their hair. And they were all curly, because they had to be all pretty.
TRACY REINER: Oh, for God's sake.
LORI PETTY: And it's just the love and the dedication that they had for baseball.
TOM HANKS: Uh, Lord. I'd just like to thank you for that waitress in South Bend. You know who she is. She kept calling your name.
ROSIE O'DONNELL: OK.
TEAM: Go Peaches!
[MUSIC - "CHOO CHOO CH' BOOGIE]
ANNOUNCER: Unbelievable! Full house audience.
Times have certainly changed since World War Two and women are now more fully a part of the public sphere. Indeed, they are part of our military, police and fire fighting forces. Nonetheless, the full inclusion of women into these spheres (and of men into the domestic/private sphere) without stigma or bias, still has some ways to go.
Watch this video (10:40) which explores the changing role of women [2] in the US military.
Core beliefs of militarism are:
And expanding upon these concepts, Bernazzoli and Flint (2010), assert that militarization also requires a connection of these ideas to national identity, patriotism and moral right. They extend the core beliefs of militarism to include:
In this section, it should be much clearer how gender, nationalism, and geopolitical codes have been constructed and strategically deployed.
Three types of “historical-geographic understandings” that are used to frame the specific justifications of particular countries are:
These categories are not deterministic of an aggressive or defensive geopolitical code, but they do show that justification for geopolitical actions used by government need to be grounded in a national ideology that resonates with the population (what Flint identifies as a “nationalist myth”).
Flint elaborates upon these types of historical-geographic understandings on page 125.
Please visit the Lesson 4 Module in Canvas for a detailed description of this assignment, including due dates.
Reminder: You should also be submitting comments on group member #2's post from last week!
A detailed explanation of this ongoing assignment can be found in the GEOG 128 Syllabus.
A light switch is either on or off; in a sports match, a team either wins or loses; water is either hot or cold; something in relation to something else can be left or right, up or down, or in or out. These are opposites - concepts that can't exist together.
Binary opposition is a key concept in structuralism, a theory of sociology, anthropology, and linguistics that states that all elements of human culture can only be understood in relation to one another and how they function within a larger system or the overall environment. We often encounter binary oppositions in cultural studies when exploring the relationships between different groups of people, for instance: upper-class and lower-class, male and female, or developed and under-developed, and so on. On the surface, these seem merely like identifying labels, but what makes them binary opposites is the notion that they cannot coexist.
The problem with a system of binary opposites is that it creates boundaries between groups of people and leads to prejudice and discrimination. One group may fear or consider a threat the 'opposite' group, referred to as the other. The use of binary opposition in literature is a system that authors use to explore differences between groups of individuals, such as cultural, class, or gender differences. Authors may explore the gray area between the two groups and what can result from those perceived differences.
Source: Education Portal [3]
As Flint states,
(T)he construction of national myths has been essential in representing geopolitical codes in a way that makes them believable or readily accepted. Such representation requires the construction of us/them and inside/outside categories…. In other words, the nation requires an understanding (of us) that is tidily bounded both physically and socially. The geographic extent of the nation is understood to be clear, it simply follows the lines on the map, and we are led to an understanding of who ‘belongs’ or is a member of the nation and who is a foreigner, alien, or whatever term is used to describe ‘other’. (2016, p. 128)
Flint goes on to discuss the effects that contributions of feminist geopolitical theorizing have had on better understanding our contemporary globalized geopolitical landscape. To be sure, the world we live in and negotiate is much more diverse, complex, and messy than how it is represented to be. Thus, alternative representations encourage us to think outside of the nation-state framework. Indeed, in subsequent chapters/lessons that discuss territory and borders, networks, and environmental geopolitics, we will come to understand how the flow between places (of natural resources, people, commerce, and trade, etc.) has become increasingly integrated into our everyday lives. And so, processes of globalization (which describes the intensification of global interconnections and flows), underscore the tensions between the concept of nationalism and neatly bounded, homogenous identity; transnationalism is a social phenomenon and scholarly research agenda that has grown out of the heightened interconnectivity between people and the receding economic and social significance of boundaries among nation states. This tension has been hotly debated in the geopolitical community—as some have subsequently predicted that the rise of the “network society” may lead to the “end of the nation-state”. Others are skeptical of this thesis. Certainly, states are still very powerful geopolitical actors. Flint goes further in a discussion of the ways in which states are crucially important and relevant in facilitating the transnational flow of people, ideas, commodities, and so forth. Further, Flint highlights Agnew’s (1994) work that explores the ways in which sovereignty is “‘unbundled’ through the operation of networks that cut across national boundaries” (2016, p. 130).
One of the reasons Flint pushes us to think about the ways in which binaries have underpinned geopolitics is to see how their construction and application have been a part of nationalist myths and geopolitical codes. Instead, he compels us to think about the importance of human security (in contrast to a national security) within our interconnected transnational global framework.
You should now be able to:
You have reached the end of Lesson 4! Double-check the Lesson 4 module in Canvas to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Lesson 5.