BOOK REVIEW The child of social Darwinism The Geopolitics Reader edited by Gearoid O Tuathail, Simon Dalby
and Paul Routlege
Reviewed by Dmitry Shlapentokh
Geopolitics is actually a child of social Darwinism in its Herbert Spencer
interpretation. Spencer (1820-1903) had regarded society as a sort of organism;
and geopolitics, at least in the beginning of the development of the creed, had
added geography to this biologized vision of society.
The idea that geography is essential for the shape of society is an old one; it
could well be traced to the 18th century. There was an acceptance, for example,
that true democracy could survive only
in the small state and that the big empire required one-man rule. This, for
example, was one of the popular explanatory models for the transition from the
Roman republic to empire.
Still, this early marriage of politics and geography was different from what
one could see in geopolitical models in the future. Indeed, in the early
advocacy of the importance of geography for politics, it was believed that
geography could change the nature of a state, transforming it, for example, as
the state increased in size. For instance, while expanding, the Roman republic
became the Roman Empire. For geopoliticians, the connection between geography
and political/intellectual make-up was permanent and would not change
regardless of size.
Both Halford Mackinder and especially Albrecht Haushofer, two of the founding
fathers of 20th-century geopolitics, shaped one of the major elements of
thought in their practical implications. They proclaimed that there was a
permanent conflict between civilizations of the sea and those of the land. They
also put forward the idea that those who control the "heartland", mostly of
what was then the Soviet Union, would control the globe. Already in the
beginning of the 20th century, geopolitics was not an abstract principle but
was directly incorporated in politics.
This was especially clear in Nazi Germany. In fact, one could see that racist
and geopolitical thought competed in influence among the Nazi elite. While
rooted in social Darwinism, as was the case with the Nazis, geopoliticians such
as Haushofer were not racists. Haushofer believed it was spiritual/cultural and
political make-up of the countries - all products of a peculiar geographical
position - that should unite nations but not racial make-up. For example, he
believed that Hitlerian Germany had more in common with Stalinist Russia than
with supposedly racially close Anglo-Saxons in capitalist, democratic England.
Thus Haushofer could well be seen as one of the inspirational forces of the
August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which opened the doors to World War II and
the division of Europe. Most historians judged these events from the insight of
the future Soviet-Nazi war, regarding this alliance as a temporary zigzag.
Adolf Hitler wanted to avoid a two-front war, and Josef Stalin needed time to
prepare for the final onslaught of Germany and took advantage of Hitler in
Europe to engage in spoils on his own. Still, if the geopoliticians had won,
the Axis, Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo-Rome, could have been a more stable construction
and the course of history could have been different.
Thus, in its practical implications, "geopolitics" in its strict meaning is the
science, or pseudo-science if you wish, of how relationships between states are
related to their geographical position. In more general terms, it regards the
relationship between global powers as the key element of history to which all
other societal activities, such as social and class conflicts, ideological
trends and so forth, are subordinated or incorporated.
The geopolitics emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was
neglected in the West for most of the second half of the 20th century. The
reason is clear: geopolitics was popular in the Third Reich, and Haushofer
played a leading role in the intellectual and quasi-political life of the
Reich. Tainted by its association with the Nazis, geopolitics became the victim
of "political correctness" and pretty much fell from sight, despite the fact
that elements of geopolitical thought have been employed in various degrees by
US foreign-policy practitioners.
US imperial expansion in the post-Cold War era, kaleidoscopic change in foreign
arrangements, and a decline of "politically correct" censorship made it
possible for geopolitics to re-emerge in US intellectual discourse. The
Geopolitics Reader, a collection of writings by those the editors
regard as leading geopoliticians, is a sign of this.
While all the materials in the book undoubtedly are valuable, the most
interesting are those that focus on contemporary American political thinkers
whom the editors regard as geopoliticans. Here, one can see the rapid evolution
of US foreign thought from boundless optimism to absolute confusion.
This section of the book opens with the famous essay "The End of History?" by
Francis Fukuyama, whom the authors regard as a neo-con or precursor of
neo-conservatives. Fukuyama's 1989 essay regards late-20th-century US society
as almost ideal, or at least as the best of all possible societies. And the
authors sincerely believe that the very superiority of the US example will lead
to an almost spontaneous Americanization of the majority of the people of the
Earth. Since this Americanization has not happened, the theory of Samuel P
Huntington - no less popular than Fukuyama - emerged. Its gist is the "conflict
civilization", each civilization retaining its specific matrix absolutely
incompatible with any other.
Less known - at least compared with the previous two ideas - is the Robert
Kagan theory, which can be seen as a sort of picturesque manifestation of the
neo-conservative theory of international relations, albeit free of moralizing
about spreading democracy as the major goal of US foreign policy. In Kagan's
view, the world is ruled not by international law, as most shortsighted
Europeans believe, but by the Hobbesian, actually Darwinistic, world of the
survival of the fittest.
And this is well understood by Americans. Since Kagan lived in Europe and was
able to engage in employing a politically incorrect comparison, he compared
Americans to the masculine, virile Mars and Europe to the beautiful but
powerless Venus.
The Kagan theory is especially telling because it was conceived on the eve of
the US war with Iraq, about four years ago, and seems to be the end product of
the development of US geopolitical thought and, perhaps, its grand foreign
policy as well. With the apparent demonstration of US military impotence, Venus
once again might take the lead, including in the intellectual realm.
It is quite possible that new ideas will once again emerge in Europe, where
geopolitical reasoning was born. It is clear that the development of
geopolitical thought will not be stopped, and a future edition of this volume
will have other interesting entries.
The Geopolitics Reader by Gearoid O Tuathail, Simon Dalby and Paul
Routlege (editors), Routledge, 2006. ISBN-13: 978-0415162715. Price US$61, 344
pages.
Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history, College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend. He is author of
East Against West: The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles (2005).
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
Both Halford Mackinder and especially Albrecht Haushofer, two of the founding
fathers of 20th-century geopolitics, shaped one of the major elements of
thought in their practical implications. They proclaimed that there was a
permanent conflict between civilizations of the sea and those of the land. They
also put forward the idea that those who control the "heartland", mostly of
what was then the Soviet Union, would control the globe. Already in the
beginning of the 20th century, geopolitics was not an abstract principle but
was directly incorporated in politics.
