واکاوی نقش ایالات متحده در نظریه‌های جغرافیای سیاسی سه دوره کلاسیک، مدرن و پست مدرن

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.

2 استاد جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.

چکیده

قسمت اعظمی از فرایند توسعه جغرافیای سیاسی، تحت تاثیر نظریه‌هایی بوده است که در دو قرن اخیر توسط دانشمندان جهانی اندیش مطرح شده است. نظریه‌های کلاسیک جغرافیای سیاسی عمدتا با محوریت کشورState و مولفه‌های تشکیل دهنده آن مطرح شده‌اند. با این حال، نظریه‌های مدرن و پست مدرن جغرافیای سیاسی، هرچند همچنان توجه ویژه‌‌ای به استیت و مقیاس ملی/ کشوری دارند، اما این محوریت را به صورت واحد برنمی‌تابند و با کمک مسئله مقیاس جغرافیایی، دامنه دید جغرافیای سیاسی را از سطح خرد تا سطح جهانی با موضوعات وسیع تر گسترش می‌دهد. هدف اصلی ما در این پژوهش کاربردی و نظری، با روش جمع آوری داده به شکل اسنادی و کتابخانه‌ای و شیوۀ تحلیل اطلاعات توصیفی – تحلیلی، بررسی نقش ایالات متحده در نظریه‌های جغرافیای سیاسی سه دوره کلاسیک، مدرن و پست مدرن، از طلوع قرن بیستم تا کنون است. بررسی 14 نظریه از تئوریسین‌های جغرافیای سیاسی، نشان می‌دهد که ایالات متحده نقش محوری خود را در طول قرن بیست و بیست و یک حفظ کرده است، با این وجود، سطح تحلیل در نظریه‌پردازی جغرافیای سیاسی، از تمرکز بر کشور محوری، به تحلیل‌های چند مقیاسی در نظریه‌های جدید رسیده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of the role of the United States in the political geography theories of the three classical, modern, and postmodern periods

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hassan Noorali 1
  • Zahra Pishgahifard 2
1 PhD Student in Political Geography at the University of Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor in Political Geography, University of Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Introduction
Much of the process of developing political geography has been influenced by theories proposed by global thinkers over the past two centuries. The classical theories of political geography have been proposed mainly with the focus on the state and its constituent components. However, modern and postmodern theories of political geography, although they still pay special attention to the state and the national/country scale, but they do not reflect this centrality as a unit. Therefore, with the help of the geographical scale problem, it expands the scope of political geography from the micro level to the global level with wider issues.
Methodology
Our main purpose in this applied and theoretical research is to study the role of the United States in the theories of political geography of the three classical, modern and postmodern periods, from the dawn of the twentieth century to It is now. An examination of 14 theories by political geography theorists shows that each thinker seeks to represent in some way the role of the United States and its rise and fall in the world order to the rulers of their own country or to the world. These fourteen theories are: Turner's frontier hypothesis, the influence of central authority on the landscape (Whittlesey), the political cycle of state (Valkenburg), the geographical understanding of political survival (Hartshorne), the geographical model of political systems analysis (Cohen and Resonant), Theories of the world system, the center-periphery model and the theory of the decline of American power (Wallerstein), the triple theory of modernity (Peter Taylor), the theory of the political geography of the world order (John René Short), the theory of distance and foreign policy (Henrikson), the theory of modern nation-building (Fukuyama) and the theory of social movement in political geography (Michael Brown).
Results and Discussion
The United States has played a prominent role in the thought process of prominent American and non-American theorists, and in this article, we have examined the role of the United States in the theories of political geography from the beginning of the 20th century until now. The results of the research show that in the theories of the three periods of classical, modern and post-modern geopolitics, the United States has played the largest role among all countries in the world, and in fact theorizing in political geography is not possible without considering the role of the United States.
 
Conclusion
The classical theories of political geography that have been proposed with the focus of the state, including hypothesis of the frontier, the impact of the central authority on the perspective and political cycle of nation, have focused on the "state" and the national scale, as the main actor of the international system. In these theories, the United States has been attractive to these theorists as a country that has represented hegemony in the future world order. In addition, the nationality of the classic political geography theorists discussed in the article (Turner, Whittlesey, and Valkenburg), who are all Americans, has played a key role in focusing these theories on the United States and its representation.
After that, the modern theories of political geography, which is a product of the Cold War era, also started with theories focusing on the national scale, and Hartshorne illustrated the geographical position of the United States in the world order. This level of scale in theorizing continued with the theory of Cohen and Rosental, and they placed the United States as one of the main countries at the end of the open spectrum of the world's national political systems. But the focus on state-centric in modern theorizing gradually faded, and the theories of American Taylor and Wallerstein, presented at the end of the Cold War, found a wider scale and ranged from the local to the global level. Of course, this did not prevent these theorists from emphasizing the national interests of their country, and they always depicted the hegemonic role of the United States in the world order in their theories. In postmodern theories; This progress in the scalability of theories continued with the theory of triple of modernity, and the United States was introduced as the representative of the third round of modernity and depicted as the third hegemon. These levels of postmodern analysis continued in political geography with the work of John René Short, Henrikson, and Fukuyama. However, the key role of the United States was maintained with regard to the American nationality or the countries aligned with those theorists on the one hand and maintaining the global power of this country on the other hand.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • United States
  • Political Geography
  • Theories of Political Geography
  • State
  • Geography
  1. افضلی، رسول؛ حسن کامران و محمد حسین دشتی، (1398). تبیین تقابل ایران و آمریکا در ژئوپلیتیک منطقه خزر، فصلنامه جغرافیا (فصلنامه علمی انجمن جغرافیای ایران)، دوره17، شماره 61: صص.  24-5.
  2. Afzali, R., Kamran, H. & Dashti, M. (2018), Explaining the Iran-US confrontation in the geopolitics of the Caspian region, Geography Quarterly (Geography Association of Iran),Vol.17, No. 61, pp. 5-24.
  3. Agnew, J. (2002). Making Political Geography (Human Geography in the Making). A Hodder Arnold Publication.
  4. Agnew, J. & Mitchell, K. (2003). A Companion to Political Geography. Malden, MA: Blackwel.
  5. Agnew, J. & Smith, J. (2011). American Space American Place: Geographies of the Contemporary United States. Edinburgh University Pres.
  6. Boyle, M. (2005). Reviewed Work(s): Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky; The Decline of American Power: The US in a Chaotic World by Immanuel Wallerstein. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-).
  7. Cohen , S. & Rosenthal, L. (1971). A Geographical Model for Political Systems Analysis. Geographical Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jan., 1971), pp. 5-31 Published by: American Geographical Society , 6.
  8. Cohen, S. B. (2014). Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  9. Cox, K., Low, M. & Robinson, J. (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Political Geography. SAGE Publications Ltd .
  10. Cox, K. (2002). Political Geography,Territory, State, and Society, Blackwell Publishers.
  11. (2012). The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. Retrieved from https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/places/north-america/us/united-states/history
  12. Muir, Richard. (1975). Modern Political Geography. Macmillan.
  13. Miller, D. (2013). How Geography Explains the United States. Foreign Policy, APRIL Vol.16,No. 8, 51 PM.
  14. Flint, C. (2006). Introduction to Geopolitics. Routledge.
  15. Flint, C. (2010). Geographic Perspectives on World-Systems Theory. The International Studies Encyclopedia, Edited by: Robert A. Denemark.
  16. Flint, C. & Taylor, P. (2018). A world-systems approach to political geography. Routledge, 7th Edition.
  17. Fukuyama, F. (2004). State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Cornell University Press.
  18. Fukuyama, F. (2004). The imperative of State-building. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 15, No. 2 .
  19. Hartshorne, R. (1953). Where in the World Are We?: Geographic Understanding for Political Survival and Progress. Journal of Geography.
  20. Hartshorne, R. (1954). Political Geography, in American Geography. (e. P. Inventory and Prospect, Ed.) Syracuse University Press.
  21. Hartshorne, R. (2015). Where in the World Are We?: Geographic Understanding for Political Survival and Progress. Journal of Geography, Routledge.
  22. Henrikson, A. (2002). Distance and Foreign Policy: A Political Geography Approach. International Political Science Review .
  23. Jackson, W. (1964). Politics and geographic relationships. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.).
  24. Jones, M., jones, R., & Woods, M. (2004). AN INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY, Space, place and politics,. Routledge.
  25. Kearns, G. (1984). Closed space and political practice; Frederick Jackson. Environment wul Planning D; Society one! Space, Vol. 1, No4, 23-34.
  26. Kelly , P. (2016). Classical Geopolitcs, A New Analytical Model. stanford university press.
  27. Marshal, T. (2021). The Power of Geography: Ten Maps That Reveal the Future of Our World, Elliot Thompson.
  28. Mccoll, R. (2005). Encyclopedia of World Geography. Published by Facts On File.
  29. Mearsheimer, J. (1990). Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security, Vol. 15, Stable URL: International Security is currently published by The MIT Press.
  30. Painter, J. (2008). Geographies of Space and Power, in Book: The SAGE Handbook of Political Geography, Edited by Kevin R. Cox Murray Low Jennifer Robinson. SAGE.
  31. Rollins, R. (2021). United States. Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States
  32. Romeo, N. (2015). How Geography Shaped American History, Law and Politics. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.
  33. (2016). The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire. World View. Retrieved from https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire
  34. Short, J. (2002). An Introduction to Political Geography. Routledge, 2nd Edition.
  35. Taylor, P.J. (1996). The way the modern world works. Wiley.
  36. Taylor, P.J. (1999). Places, spaces and Macy’s: place–space tensions in the political geography of modernities. The Progress in Human Geography lecture, Progress in Human Geography, Vol.23, No.1, pp. 7–26.
  37. Taylor, P. J. & Flint, C. (2018). Political Geography,World-Economy, Nation-State and Locality. Routledge.
  38. Taylor, G. (2014). Elements of Political Geography by Samuel Van Valkenburg, Review by: Griffith Taylor. Economic Geography, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr., 1939), p. 212 Published by: Clark University.
  39. Turner, F. (1920). The significance of the frontier in American history. in The Frontier in American History, Ed. F J Turner (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York) pp. 1-38.
  40. Valkenburg, S. (1939). Elements of Political Geography Hardcover. Prentice-Hall, inc.
  41. Wallerstein, I. (2003). The decline of American power: the US in a chaotic world. New York, NY: New Press.
  42. Whittlesey, D. (1935). The Impress of Effective Central Authority upon the Landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,Vol. 25, No.2, pp.85-97, 85-97.