Content area
Full Text
These thoughtful articles reflect constructively on Mackinder's 1904 Pivot paper, documenting the ways in which his ideas were transposed to other parts of the world and interrogating his very imperial geopolitics a century on. In revisiting Mackinder for this centenary issue, I am reminded that plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Geographers continue to probe the edges of empire, as critics, patriots, and scientists.
Mackindcr's 'panoramic view of global imperialism' (see Blouet, this issue) can be juxtaposed with more current occupations, such as 'pre-emptive protection' in Iraq. Mackinder's observation of the shift from sea to land power under the rubric of colonialism may be outdated by contemporary military might, but his imperial logic of geopolitical influence is not. From another perspective, Hardt and Negri (2000) argue in Empire that the United States holds a position of privilege and power in an empire without a centre, one transformed not by the advent of air or land power but by the informational mode of production. One cannot, of course, read Mackinder outside of the strategic debates and international relations of his time (see Venier, this issue), nor can we interpret his 1904 writing in the context of current debates, but tracing critically the ways in which imperial visions are developed and deployed is as relevant as ever.
From Mackinder's 'imperial protectionism' (Blouet, this issue) to the Bush Administration's 'pre-emptive' war in Iraq, thinking about geopolitical strategy appears to have changed less than one might like to believe. Mackinder's pivot theory interprets and portrays 'other' landscapes in a detached, neutral manner that naturalizes people and place and scientifically justifies 'intervention' (see Hepple, this issue). For the Bush Administration, in contrast, the 'axis of evil' is vilified in dominant geopolitical discourse, underwritten by scientific claims about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, yet the same kind of justification for imperial invention is made.
Gerry Kearns and Pascal Venier (in this issue) argue that the Pivot paper demonstrates the policy relevance of geography in aiding statecraft. Specifically, Kearns contends that Mackinder's strongly imperialist view of geography alienated liberals and socialists alike, but also threatened the intellectual integrity of the discipline by over-politicizing geopolitical discourse. Operating at the intersection of geography, history and empire, it becomes clear that...