Geography is a sacred space because it speaks the truth; it is the realm of politics, and the terrestrial abode of the state and the defender of civilizational identity. The term ‘geography’ is a scattered phenomenon, which encompasses mountains, rivers, deserts, forests and oceans. Moreover, the concept of geography etymologically maintains a conservative ideology that protects culture and tradition of distinct communities. Basically, the term ‘geography’ came from the ancient Greek language, which means the description of the earth. The geographical tradition since the time of Herodotus has been dynamic; because in the ancient Greece, the concept of geography was stigmatized due to its relation with fate.
For instance, on the Eurasian Steppes, the Great Carpathian ranges determine and demarcate the boundaries of sub-region lies between Asia and Europe. Furthermore, for centuries, these Carpathian ranges have served as a protective shield for the mountain communities and their civilization. If we overhaul the geography of the Eurasian region; it is sacred and deeply historical. More precisely, the Caspian Basin from the banks of Baku, covers the rigid frontiers of the central Asia up to the eastern shores of Turkmenistan. In contrast, the whole Eurasian geography is dominated by inland seas and semi-inland seas i:e Caspian sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Aral Sea; Mountains such as Carpathian, Ural, Alps and Himalayas and Rivers such as Don, Ural rivers and Volga river basin.
As an illustration, it is the discipline of political geography, which evaluates the significance of each radical forces surrounding geographical domain. To be more precise, the political geography has the tendency to focus on the diverse factors in order to articulate realpolitik-ranges from strategy to statecraft. With the dawn of ideological confrontation during the early decades of the twentieth century, ideologically adhered geographers have shifted their focus from political geography towards radical geography.
With the dawn of ideological confrontation during the early decades of the twentieth century, ideologically adhered geographers have shifted their focus from political geography towards radical geography
Although, for some historians, geopolitics was the brainchild of European colonialism but the fact cannot be denied that it was the fundamental competition among three enlightenment political ideologies i:e liberalism, Fascism and Communism, which had anticipated the discourse of geopolitics. At last, it was after the 1960s, the peak years of communist-capitalist rivalry, the discipline of radical geography was expanded with the inclusion of new socio-political and economic conceptions. For instance, Immanuel Wallerstein’s World System Theory has distributed the globe into three major zones; core, semi-periphery and periphery, while David Harvey’s concept of ‘Curved Space’ sketched a major distinction between the bourgeoisie and proletarian geography.
Fundamentally, David Harvey developed his geographical concept of the Curved Space around radical notions such as Poverty, racism, labor, exploitation and exclusion. In response, there emerged anti-colonial geographers like Peter Kropotkin and Elisee Reclus, who criticized the anticipated theory of imperialism and class-centric world-view of the Marxist tradition.
If we dig out the literature of classical Marxism, its initial focus was on the green pasture of economics, social and urban geography. Likewise, with the dawn of neo-Marxism, the focus shifted towards poverty, consumerism, and Capitalist Market; which molded radical subject areas such as ethnography, ecology and feminist geography. Lastly, it was Harvey’s limits of Capital that paved the way for the development of radical geography-actually Harvey formulated the superstructure basis of the state in the context of political economy by associating it with geographical discourse.
On the other hand, when we overhaul the colonial geography; it was the discourse of ‘geopolitics’ anticipated by German geographer and strategist Frederich Ratzel that came to dominate the undercurrents of global politics with the dawn of the twentieth century. The same tradition was later inherited by famous British geographer Halford Mackinder, who formulated the Heartland thesis highlighting the geographical pivot that lies at the heart of Eurasian region. Basically, Mackinder’s Heartland thesis predicted the epic clash between Tellurocratic Space-land based imperial stretch led by Russia and Thalassocratic Space-water-locked continental power, Great Britain.
With this description, it was through the essence of ‘Eurasian Heartland’, Mackinder forecasted strategic importance of command over the World Island. Moreover, the command over the World Island, Mackinder anticipated will pave the way for the establishment of world order, which has three major power-domains; Sovereignty, geography and geopolitical vision. In this regard, it is the Greater Eurasian Space, in Schmittian term ‘Grossraum’, which is inherently sacred geographical territory that encompasses the greatest natural fortresses on Earth.
In a nut shell, the Greater space of the Eurasian region inherently resides radical elements because for centuries it has been the cross-road for civilizations, and cultural communities. Moreover, because of its organic natural environment, it has diffused more three major civilizations into its blight-conceivably, the current socio-cultural space of the Eurasian region symbolizes a perfect ‘Melting Pot’. Therefore, the Great Eurasian Space is not only radical geographically but also culturally.
The writer is international Relations scholar based in Islamabad