Geopolitics Quarterly

Geopolitics Quarterly

From Absolute to Relative and Cognitive Space: Evolution of Geopolitics

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Igor Okunev 1
Anastasia Liubimova 2
1 Assistant Professor in Political Geography, Institute for International Relations, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia.
2 MSc Student in Political Geography, Institute for International Relations, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia.
10.22034/igq.2025.489248.1976
Abstract
The complexity of global order is often obscured by the oversimplified representations of international relations, illustrated through political maps. These maps, while seemingly objective, are subjective projections that reflect the ideology of their creators and fail to capture the nuanced dynamics of power and control among states. Such a misrepresentation contributes to a distorted understanding of global dynamics. Meanwhile, the origins of political geography can be traced back to the 18th century, particularly with the establishment of the first school of political geography in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, between 1720 and 1750. Political geography, however, is not entirely homogenic; it encompasses several competing theories regarding the perception of space. It has developed gradually with the changes in perception of space: as an absolute, relative and cognitive space respectively. Recognizing the complexity and evolutionary features of a political map and political geography as whole thus appears to be crucial for understanding global politics.
Keywords
Political Geography
Geopolitics
Critical Geopolitics
Absolute Space
Relative Space

Subjects

  1. Agnew, John. (2003). Geopolitics: Revisioning world politics. 2nd ed. New York, Florence: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group distributor.
  2. Anderson, Benedict. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Revised ed. London: Verso.
  3. Anholt, Simon. (2010). Places identity, image and reputation. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
  4. Büsching, Anton Friedrich. (1760). Neue Erdbeschreibung: Welcher Dänemark, Norwegen, Schweden, das ganze rußische Kaiserthum, Preussen, Polen, Ungarn, und die europäische Türkey, mit denen dazu gehörigen und einverleibten Ländern [New description of the earth: which includes Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the entire Russian Empire, Prussia, Poland, Hungary, and the European Turkey, with the countries belonging to and incorporated into it]. Hamburg: Hamburg Publishing.
  5. Carnap, Rudolf. (1922). Der Raum: Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftslehre [Space: A contribution to science]. Kant-Studien Erganzugschefte, 56, 21–208.
  6. Vidal De la Blache, Paul; De Martonne, Emmanuel. (1918). Principles of human geography: Translated from the French by Millicent Todd Bingham. London: Constable.
  7. Gallaher, Carolyn. (2010). Key concepts in political geography. Los Angeles: Sage.
  8. Hafeznia, Mohammd Reza. (2014). A New Approach to the History of Political Geography in the World. Geopolitics Quarterly, 10(33), 1–36.[In Persian]
  9. Haushofer, Karl. (1939). Geopolitische Grundlagen. Berlin: Industrieverlag Spaeth & Linde.
  10. Haushofer, Karl. (2013). Geopolitik des Pazifischen Ozeans: Studien über die Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Geographie und Geschichte. Berlin: Dogma.
  11. Hübner, Johann. (1693). Kurtze Fragen aus der Neuen und alten Geographie [Planet's summary description from old and new geography]. Leipzig: Leipzig Publishing.
  12. Kitsikis, Dimitri. (1985). l'Empire ottoman. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  13. Kraft, Georg Wolfgang. (1738). Kurtze Einleitung zur Mathematischen und Natürlichen Geographie, nebst dem Gebrauch der Erd-Kugeln und Land-Charten, zum Nutzen der Russischen studierenden Jugend [A Concise Guide to Mathematical and Natural Geography: With the Use of a Globe and Landscapes: Compiled for the Benefit of Russian Youth]. Saint Petersburg: Academy of Sciences.
  14. Mackinder, Halford John. (1996). Democratic ideals and Reality: A study in the politics of Reconstruction. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.
  15. Mearsheimer, John. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. Princeton, N.J: W.W. Norton & Company.
  16. Mearsheimer, John. (1995). A Realist Reply. International Security, 20(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539218
  17. Mearsheimer, John. (2009). Reckless States and Realism. International Relations, 23(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539218
  18. Smith, Sara. (2020). Political geography: A critical introduction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
  19. Spykman, Nicholas. (1944). The geography of the peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
  20. Tatishchev, Vasiliĭ Nikitich. (1950). Избранные труды по географии России [Selected works on the geography of Russia]. Moscow: Географгиc [Geografgis].
  21. Taylor, Peter; Flint, Colin. (2000). Political geography. 4th ed. London: Pearson education.
  22. Winsheim Von, Christian Nicola. (1745). Kurzgefasste politische Geographie zur Erläuterung eines kleinen, in Russischer Sprache publizierten Atlantis entworffen bey der Kayserl [Brief political geography for the explanation of a small Atlantis published in Russian by the Imperial Academy of Sciences]. Saint Petersburg: Academy of Sciences.
Geopolitics Quarterly
Volume 21, Issue 2
Summer 2025
Pages 219-237

  • Receive Date 16 November 2024
  • Revise Date 17 January 2025
  • Accept Date 23 January 2025