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:
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.
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.