Human geography and the contextual politics of substantive democratization

Abstract

*Email: kristian.stokke@sgeo.uio.noI IntroductionWhereas human geography is rich in theor-etical and empirical work on economic global-ization and associated neoliberal ideology and governance, there is a striking absence of research on the parallel global spread and hegemony of liberal democracy during the last three decades. This ‘ghostly presence of democracy in geography’ was pointed out by Barnett and Low (2004: 1) five years ago. Despite their call for close attention to democracy and their efforts to bring to the fore and build on research where democracy has served as a veiled backdrop, there is still a relative silence on democracy in human geography. This general assessment holds true, although with some exceptions, even for the new and authoritative Handbook of political geography (Cox et al., 2008). The research lacuna identified by Barnett and Low thus remains, and especially the question of strategic agendas for human geographic re-search on democracy and democratization.In explaining the ghostly presence of dem-ocracy in human geography, Barnett and Low emphasize the separation between democratic theory and dominant theor-etical traditions in human geography. Human geographers working on themes related to democracy such as the state, social justice and citizenship have found inspiration in political economy, moral and cultural theory rather than democratic theory, with a clear leaning towards radical rather than liberal traditions. It is within subdisciplines of human geography that emphasize more policy-orientated and interdisciplinary research topics, such as urban planning, environmental policy and devel-opment studies, that ‘one can find the most sustained reflection on the normative issues raised by democratization processes’ (Barnett and Low, 2004: 3). Such democracy-related geographic scholarship has, however, had a marginal role in defining theoretical debates and research practices within mainstream human geography. This means, for example, that the relatively rich and critical literature on civil society participation and represen-tation in the context of democratic transitions in the Global South tends to be relegated to an inferior position of ‘applied development geography’ rather than being incorporated into the ethnocentric mainstream of human geography.The means for overcoming this separ-ation between democratic theory and theory in human geography, according to Barnett and Low, is: (1) to rediscover the diversity of liberalisms and especially those traditions of egalitarian democratic liberalism that seeks to overcome the duality between equity and liberty; (2) to engage political theorists on emerging shared concerns with space, scale and boundaries; and (3) to overcome the © The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions:http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDownloaded from phg.sagepub.com