Abstract
This article focuses on Daniel Bos’s “popular geopolitics 3.0” term. The hypothesis is that this concept is considered unconvincing. In the research tradition of popular geopolitics, it was and is typical to separate studies on the creators of geopolitical symbols in pop culture, i.e. the elites (popular geopolitics 1.0), and on their consumers (popular geopolitics 2.0). Analyses of the process of producing geopolitical meanings in pop culture artifacts have been rarely undertaken. In the opinion of Bos, his holistic studies on the geopolitical meaning of military-themed video games integrate research on the text, audience and production. However, they can hardly be considered a new trend in popular geopolitics. Because they relate to the narrow sphere of pop culture, they cause a lot of problems with the consistency of the approach and are of limited use for geopolitical research of other pop culture artifacts. The use of the term “popular geopolitics 3.0” would be more appropriate to the study of the interference between social media, pop culture and geopolitics.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska sectio K - Politologia
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
