Where should we begin? Political geography and international relations

Abstract

At a time when spatial metaphors are “becoming just as paradigmatic as was the use of mechanistic and biological metaphors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries” ( Bruce, 1993), it is hardly surprising that geographers have launched an internal debate on the meaning and ramifications of this massive “rediscovery” of geography ( Abler, 1999). More surprising, and perhaps also more promising, is the considerable interest generated by this debate in scholarly audiences outside the spatial disciplines. Following a sustained lack of attention to their geographies, the political fields (international relations, in particular), for instance, seem seriously motivated to rethink some of their problematic spatial and territorial premises. The concurrence of a greater confidence among geographers in their ability and mandate “to help others see the geography in their own topics” ( Gould, 1997) with a clearer realization by “others” (in this case, political scientists) that they can use all the help they can get in this matter, should open the door for new fertile dialogues and collaborations between the spatial and the political disciplines. However, a record of missed opportunities and mismanaged prior encounters cautions against overly optimistic expectations regarding the anticipated payoffs of this long-overdue scholarly re-engagement. Incidental or transient rediscoveries are easy; the true challenge is, of course, to facilitate a sustained dialogue with long-standing beneficial effects for both scholarship and society. Elazar's suggestive essay derives its pertinence from this general context and offers a timely opportunity to carry such concerns and activities further down the road. In the following, I will address his contention that “a discussion of the relationship of political science and geography should begin with consideration of location” from the standpoint of International Relations (IR). Within this limited focus, I will acknowledge some merits of this thesis, yet offer an alternative starting point for new interdisciplinary ventures. My argument builds on Julie Thompson Klein's insistence that effective interdisciplinary work “requires an added form of knowledge”. To that extent, dialogue-oriented IR and geography scholars may want to preface their foregrounding of specific concepts, theories and/or methods (such as location) with some shared reflections on communicative competencies and skills needed to engage in productive disciplinary crossings at the end of this century. Such is the spirit of the alternative point of departure sketched in the second part of this short response.