International conference on Nature, Nation and Society

Reconsidering "Politics" in Social and Political Geography

June 13 - 15, 2002, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Nature, Nation and Society

Reconsidering "Politics" in Social and Political Geography

University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, June 13 - 15, 2002

Contents:

Paper Sessions
Our Guest Lecturers
Preliminary conference program

1. Introduction

1.1 Point of departure

Over the past decade several societal developments have challenged key features of the modern conception of the political sphere, which for the sake of subsequent argumentation might be defined primarily in terms of:

human-centredness,
territory- and state-centredness,
a relatively uncritical stance towards normative outcomes.

Processes like the emergence of techno- and bio-politics (environment, genetic engineering), the re-positioning of state power and the welfare state (liberalisation, globalisation, post-cold war conflicts, deterritorialised terrorism etc.), and the loss of taken-for-granted political frames of reference (left-right, east-west, traditional-modern etc.) indicate a world-wide, rapid and profound transformation of the political sphere. Although this has stimulated both a revival of political geography and an extension of its scope, until now neither the meaning of the “political” nor ideas revolving around the constitution of the political sphere per se have been debated thoroughly within the discipline. By focusing critically on the interrelations of nature, nation and society -- three constitutive terms of modern political thought and theorizing -- the announced conference invites a reconsideration of the political and its transformations in political and social geography.

1.2 Transformations of the political sphere and geography - a sketch

Whereas academic political geography, from its roots in the 19th century to the Second World War, was affirmatively committed to and interwoven with nation-building and colonialism, today most geographers distance themselves from any unreflective involvement in political processes occurring at any scale. This attitude is expressed, for instance, by self-attributions such as "critical geography" or "critical geo-politics". However, a “critical” stance assures neither an ethically unproblematic position, nor does it provide insulation from political conflicts and geopolitical struggles, as was the implicitly chosen strategy of large parts of political geography in the first decades following World War II.

It is therefore a methodological desiderata of this conference to reflect upon the normative implications of the selective awareness, specific terminology, metaphorical rhetoric, advice and explicit critique by geographical observers and analysts of political processes. This is particularly relevant with regards to conflicts which do not emerge primarily from diverging interests but from incommensurable world views. If we cannot avoid taking a position, on what basis can we embrace one?

Of course answers to these questions will themselves already reveal positions within a certain meta-theoretical horizon. A main source of inspiration regarding normative and political issues are those social, cultural and academic movements that problematize many of the constitutive features of modernity: feminism, bio- and ecocentrism, post-modern and post-structuralist philosophies, debates on biotechnology, science studies etc. Despite their different origins they share a rejection of some of the central ingredients of modern modes of representation, such as universal claims of validity, transcendental dichotomies or de-contextualized identities.

This leads to a variety of reconceptualizations of representation and a corresponding transformation of the basic categories with which to describe persons and social life. In this respect the nature/culture binary has revealed itself of central significance. To deny its transcendental status opens a path that leads to the acceptance of hybrid and non-human entities as members of society and, by consequence, to the problem of how to represent heterogeneous associations politically, particularly in deliberative and representative democracies.

Transcending essentialist notions and binaries, however, poses still more intricate problems, since there is no innocent way to speak about politics. All determinations of this latter term imply a difference from the non-political, which can be traced back to processes of “othering” and exclusion of the "non-political". But what could be considered a priori as a-political? At the same time, however, a notion of politics that incorporates everything is meaningless, even empty in a specific sense. How to escape this paradox? Would it help to take a procedural notion of the political, that is to adapt its meaning from situation to situation, from context to context?

Political communication is necessarily a field that relates the individual to larger communities. In the course of cultural evolution this task soon exceeded the possibilities of camp-fires, agoras and other face-to-face meetings. The 20th century may be regarded as that period in which real-time mass communication was introduced on a global scale. The telephone, radio, TV and Internet represent technical means, but are also highly concentrated markets of communication, and have a significant impact on those processes which modern political philosophy has addressed as the formation of political will, thus forming the core of any conception of democracy.

According to modern (mostly liberal) accounts, it is the individual who knows his/her situation best. Therefore, he/she must have the chance to express their preferences in the public sphere and to substantiate them with good arguments. But many relevant aspects of contemporary social life transcend individual perception and the knowledge of lay-persons, and thus the term "citizen" is shaped to a greater and greater extent by the mass media. The latter, however, are not at all reliable representatives of an objective reality, but produce selective communications and events based on limited knowledge, and this actually in order to sell advertising space to the largest possible audience. The mass media thereby provides platforms for different actors, who vary considerably in their ability to express themselves and to instrumentalize the media for their goals. As a consequence, the public sphere cannot be conceived as a technically enlarged agora, where individuals can raise their voice. Rather, political communication resembles a labyrinth of mutually dependent organisations and interpenetrating fields of performativity. What are the consequences of this for conceptions of representation and democracy?

“Globalization” – a buzzword that refers to many processes and developments simultaneously, of which the transformation of the public sphere is just one. In political economic terms it refers to the mobility gap of capital and labour. While “capital” has been allowed to move quickly to the most profitable investments of the hour, “labour” cannot escape as easily the social and ecological consequences, since individuals are not able to change their professional skills or move their home on a day-to-day basis. This “gap” was not matched by a development of the reach and power of legal and political regulations, resulting in a weakening of the representation of the interests of populations compared to those of enterprises and share- holders. Secondly, this situation has provoked an internationalization of NGO’s and social movements, and thus of political actors that are not legitimated by formalized and legally guaranteed modes of political representation. These developments, complemented by a partial dismantling of the welfare state, may not yet entitle observers to speak of the “end of the nation-state”, but begs an investigation into the repositioning of a variety of its institutions. The most recent terrorist attacks, which turned civil risks (airplanes, skyscrapers) into ubiquitous weapons of mass destruction, revealed the enormous helplessness and vulnerability of modern national security and defense regimes. In light of these events, nation-states have lost some of their hegemony as political and military agents.

Modern political theory places the nation-state at the centre of its worldview. By regarding the interstate-system as the form best representing the political sphere in general and nations as the form that naturally determines this division, modernists confer upon the nation-state a quasi-natural, ontological status. If, however, the state can be recognized as just one form of organization among others, if its hegemony constitutes but a short historical period, and if ethnically homogeneous territories are nothing but a bloody illusion, how can we best conceptualize the institutional structure of the political sphere today? Where could we begin? To what extent could we entertain notions of radically inclusive cosmopolitical governance, embracing the human and non-human cosmos as the community of politically relevant entities? Is it wise to engage with such forms of utopianism at all?

2. Paper sessions

Reflecting the concerns of the previous section, the conference will offer a platform for a reconsideration of the political by focusing on four themes, which in turn will provide a basis for the formation of parallel sessions:

A) “Critical Geography” and political philosophy: tracing the links

Like many other academics, by naturalizing social conditions and political entities geographers have contributed to legitimating the discourses of aggressive geo-politics, racist ideologies and exploitative regimes. Reviewing the past of our discipline makes us alert to the consequences of contemporary discourses. To attribute geography as “critical” expresses a commitment to the cultivation of an awareness of ethical and political consequences in the discourses of the discipline and science in general. What is the semantic profile and spectrum of the “critical” within our field? What kind of meta-theoretical perspectives are involved? What might be an adequate role for geographers with respect to politics and conflict? Political and moral philosophy provide a long-standing framework for the conception of moral aspects of communication; how could they inform critical geography? How can we maintain a critical sensitivity within our discipline?

B) The politics of nature and the nature of politics

“Nature” was the modern antagonist of culture. Whereas the latter referred to the sphere of human creativity and influence, nature was the mere being, the sphere of fate, the passive matter that had to be formed through human hands. It was the a-political par excellence. Eco-centric, feminist and poststructuralist thinkers have dispensed with a priori nature/culture distinctions, with the transcendental status of nature, and with determinations of society as a purified sphere of human interaction. How can we conceive of society so as to include non-human creatures? Can we imagine an all-encompassing cosmopolitics, a democracy for cyborgs and other hybrid entities? What would be the consequences for the self-perception of “human-” and “physical” geography?

C) Public sphere – political sphere

There is no politics without communication. Political communication has to bridge space and time, but the technological means and the institutional settings of mass communication are in constant transformation. If corporate identities rule the mass media, what form does political communication then take? Does it affect the legitimacy of formal political institutions and mandates? Given the profit-driven nature of journalism, can we still portray political communication as a process that generates mutual understanding?

How are contemporary technologies of global mass communication taken into account in theories of political representation and democracy? What kind of political spaces are created on the Internet?

Traditionally, wars aimed at establishing control over territories. In this respect, war was said to be the continuation of politics by other means. To what extent are advertising and publicity now a continuation of war by other means, and do they replace territorial control?

D) Politics beyond the nation-state

Within the modern political sphere, the nation-state would ideally provide the dominant arena for organizing politics: in terms of its exterior dealings featuring as world-wide international relations and geo-politics; towards its domestic constituency as a master-institution for a variety of functionally diversified servant-institutions. As it is only a contingent form, however, the nation-state is also constantly challenged by other forms of political organization. What empirical evidence exists until now for a politics outside of, apart of or beyond the nation-state? Are there imagined communities which provide a basis for solidarities beyond the nation-state? Is territoriality as an organizing principle outdated? If so, what are the consequences for governance, representation and legitimation? Within the ongoing transformation of modernity, what would politics, conflict and struggle look like?

3. Our guest lecturers

Derek Gregory, Professor of Geography and Comparative Literature at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Dr. Virginie Mamadouh, Lecturer in Political Geography at the University of Amsterdam
Wolfgang Natter, Associate Professor in Geography at the University of Kentucky, Lexington
Walter Reese-Schäfer, Professor in Political Science at the University of Göttingen

Considering the recent dramatic changes at the level of world-politics, we refrain from arranging specific themes or working titles with our guest-lecturers. They will, however, refer to one or several of the topics of the parallel sessions.

Preliminary Conference Program

Day, Time Program Place

Thursday
13-06-02

14.00 - Opening reception desk University of Nijmegen, Thomas van Aquinostraat 1.0.06
15.00 - 18.00 Welcome and 2 plenum lectures University of Nijmegen, Thomas van Aquinostraat 1.0.06
evening Conference dinner To be announced

Friday
14-06-02

9.00 - Plenum lecture
Parallel sessions part 1 University of Nijmegen, Comeniuslaan 2
12.30 Lunch De Refter
13.45- 18.00 Parallel session parts 2 and 3 University of Nijmegen, Comeniuslaan 2
evening Conference dinner To be anounced

Saturday
15-06-02

9.30 - Parallel sessions part 4,
plenum lecture
closing of conference University of Nijmegen, Comeniuslaan 2
13.00 Lunch University of Nijmegen, Comeniuslaan 2