Gerard Toal

8/12/2019 Gerard Toal

1/7

P HI L D ET IL S NDRET I l ONTEX T

An innovative und ptol ic political geog-rapher, Gearoid () 1 \ tH h n i i (Cerard Toal]was born in the HqHlblic of Ireland in1962. Growing up in Counly Monaghanon the border \ V lih orth -rn Irelandwas among the influences l i i l f pushed 6 uat hail to study polltical gvogf ;lphy. Hegraduated with a joint BA hi hi:;tmy andgeography in 1982 from SI. l llril l\ ,; Col-lege in Maynooth (now the Nali, li1) ni-versity of Ireland, Maynoolh). o Tual hailcompleted his Master s degree at the l in i -versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaignunder the direction of John () Luughlin,and moved to Syracuse University where,supervised by John Agnew and politicillscientist David Sylvan, he completed hisPhD entitled Critical geopolit it s: thesocial construction of place and spacein the practice of statecraft 0 Tuathail,1989). 0 Tuathail has taught at the ni -versity of Liverpool, University of South-ern California, University of Minnesota,and Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University.

His first publication argued for a newgeopolitics that was much more criticalthan traditional evaluations of nationalinterest and policy recommendation 0Iuathail, 1986: 73). Defining geo-politics

as political discourse structured by eitherexplicit reference to geographical locationand concepts or by use of certain implic-itly geographical policy rationalizations(e.g. ebensraum domino theory, contain-ment, expansionism) , 6 Tuathail (1986:73-4) examined US-EL Salvador relationsfrom the 1823 Monroe Doctrine to the1980s Reagan administration. Americanforeign policy , 6 Tuathail (1986: 83) con-cluded, aims to perpetuate, secure andreaffirm the American way of life. Partof insuring the survival and prosperityof large industrial states such as Americainvolves dominating, controlling and influ-encing: His subsequent article assessingUS foreign policy, co-authored with JohnAgnew (1992), precipitated a researchagenda which conceptualized geopoliticsas a form of political discourse ratherthan simply a descriptive term intendedto cover the study of foreign policy andgrand statecraft (Dodds, 2001: 469).

In their paper, 6 Thathail and Agnew(1992: 192) argued that geo-politics mustbe studied as a discursive practice bywhich intellectuals of statecraft spatial-ize international politics in such a wayas to represent it as a world character-ized by particular types of places, peoplesand dramas . Focusing on internationalrelations and foreign policy-making, 0Iuathail and Agnew (1992: 194)maintainedthat the speeches and writings of politi-cians, diplomats, policy advisors and themedia comprise geopolitical reasoning .These statements can be analysed, not to

Hague, Euan (2010) "Gearoid O Tuathail (Gerard Toal)," in Key

Thinkers on Space and Place, ed. P. Hubbard and R. Kitchin, Sage,London, Second Edition, 414-420.


2/7

Gear6id 6Tuathail Gerard Toal)

see whether they are truthful, but ratherto critically examine the effects thatusing certain terms and language haveon the practice and impact of international relations. Painter (1995: 146) thusargues that the research agenda initiatedby 6 Tuathail' s work is concerned particularly with the texts of internationalpolitics', what they mean and how theyare used, rather than political events inthemselves.

Evaluating geo-politics stimulated areshaping of political geography in the1990s, and contrasted with examinationsof the geographical facts of politics andstate relations. 6 Tuathail and Agnew(1992) argued there was a need to assesshow 'geopolitical reasoning constructsrepresentations of states, territories andpolitical regimes through discourse andhow people utilise these discursive understandings to explain events, envisioninternational relations and justify foreignpolicy actions. This research agenda,therefore, was a departure from existingstudies within political geography concerned with state formation , contestednational borders and territories, nationalism and secession, voting patterns, geographical impacts of wars and conceptssuch as world-systems theory, state theory and sovereignty (Painter, 1995; Atkinson and Dodds, 2000; Dodds, 2001).

, . , ,

SP TI L CONTRleUTIONS

6 Tuathail's key contribution to debateson space and place has been his espousalof a critical theory of geo-politics. Traditionally, geo-politics is how state analysts,military or other, interpret the territorialoperation of state power and visualise

spatial control. In contrast, 6 Tuathailargues for a critic l geo-politics that recognises and exposes geo-political assertions and makes informed critiques of thespatializing practices of pow er 6 Tuathailand Dalby, 1994: 513). Influenced by theend of the Cold War and postmodern, poststructuralist, feminist and psychoanalytictheories, critical geo-politics problematisespolitical discourses, examines their spatialassumptions, questions power relationsand challenges the role of the state andhow its institutional analysts envision theworld. () I\.tathail draws on Foucault'sunderstanding of governmentality toargue that the articulation of 'geo-power'over both people and territory is a criticalfunction of modern statehood. '[M]y concern , states 6 Tuathail (1996a: 11), 'is thepower struggle between different societiesover the right to speak sovereignly aboutgeography, space and territory. UtilisingDerrida to assess and deconstruct political discourse, 6 Tuathail (1996a: 66-7)proposes that geo-graphy and geo-politicscan be hyphenated to emphasise the process of discourse in writing or scripting ...global space by state-society intellectualsand institutions '.

Drawing on such diverse theoreticaltraditions and conversant in contemporary international relations theories, 6Tuathail productively integrated these approaches to generate analyses that interrogated contemporary international political discourse and stressed the importanceto statecraft of geographical representa tions. Indeed, this is one of 6 Tuathail 'smost significant geographical contributions. Critical geo-politics made issues ofspace and political geography pertinent tothe discipline of international relations andits practitioners, introducing geographicalanalyses to intellectual debates and scholarsthat had largely ignored these perspectives.Critical geo-politics, therefore, is interdisciplinary and 6 Tuathail has been at the


3/7

forefront of developing this field of study,editing books and special issues of majorjournals on the topic (e.g., 6 Thathail andDalby, 1994; 1998a; Dalby and 6 Thathail,1996; Herod et al., 1998; 6 Thathail et al.,1998).

In his book Critical Geopolitics, 6Thathail (1996a) deconstructs the canonof late nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury gco-poiitical texts by RudolfKjellen, Friedrich Ratzel, Karl Haushofer and Halford Mackinder, exposingtheir assumptions of political power andpaying attention to their constructionsof space, race and gender. Traditionalgeo-politics was a science for men whosought to know and control territoryand 6 1\wthail (1996a: 82) contends thatMackinder envisioned British East Africa(Kenya) as a feminized space to be penetrated, a territory reached by others butnot yet conquered . Further, 6 Thathail(1996a: 111-29) examines both the factand fictionalisation of Haushofer andNazi geo-politics in US magazines Lifeand Reader s Digest and the movie Plan forDestruction (1943). These examples arecontrasted with other geo-political textsproduced at the time, such as those byUS foreign policy analyst Robert StrauszHupe, an Austrian emigre to the US. Crit-ical Geopolitics also includes studies ofthe writings by conservative (post-) ColdWar US intellectuals Samuel Huntingtonand Edward Luttwak 6 Thathail, 1996a).

6 Tuathail has also developed a numberof concepts for critically analysing geopolitical reasoning, dividing geo-politicaldiscourse into 'popular geopolitics' - evident in the mass media, movies and popularculture; 'practical geopolitics' - apparent inforeign policy and state bureaucracy; and'formal geopolitics' produced in think

Key Thinkers on Space and Place

to produce a 'spatializing of boundariesand dangers' and to construct 'geopolitical representations of self and other', ()Thathail and Dalby (1998b: 5) maintainthat geo-politics are socio-cultural phcnomena evident in everyday life.

Geo-political representations are produced and consumed in myriad ways,from tabloid newspaper headlines andHollywood films, to presidential speechesadvocating military action. Examining the'geopolitical condition ' of contemporaryinternational politics, 6 Thathail (2000b;2002b) argues that processes like globalization, telecommunications and theworld risk society' are challenging extant

ways of thinking about state borders, territory, power, defence and security. Withworld leaders lauding the possibilities othe internet, biotechnology and telecommunications for capital , industry and science, many are simultaneously worriedthat these advances could get into th('wrong hands and generate new threals

to state security. 6 Thathail (e.g., 2002b)expands critical geo-politics beyond discourse analysis, to address the 'geopolitical world order of state alliances, globalrelations of production, consumption andthe spatial processes of trade or 'geopolitical economy and world 'techno-territorial complexes' that, through scientifi cadvances, the acceleration of transporlHtion and communications and their utilisations, re-shape power relations within.between and beyond states.

The range of topics across 6 Tuathail' :,numerous publications suggests that manycan find material to resonate with t h ~ i lown interests. Alongside re-evaluations otthe discourse of foreign policy debates andinterviews with major figures within tillgeo-political canon (e.g., 1992; 1994; 2000W


4/7

Gear6id Tuathail (Gerard Toal)

Balkan Wars of the early 1990s and theiraftermath (e.g., 1996a; 1996b; 1999; 2002a;2006; 6 Thathail and Dahlman, 2004; 2006;Dahlman and 6 Tuathail, 2005a; 2005b),Russia and crises in the Caucus Mountains in the 2000s e.g ., 2008b; Kolossovand 6 Thathail, 2007; O Loughlin et aI.,2004; 2006; 2008). One study, centred onreports by Maggie O Kane in the Britishdaily newspaper The Guardian argues ananti-geopolitics scripted Bosnia as a placeof horrors where the West must intervene,but implicitly maintained that Bosniaremains a place that is beyond the Western political sphere 6 Thathail, 1996b:182). 6 Thathail s initial examinations ofBosnia in US policy discourse were widelyapplauded; Smith (2000: 365) claimed theycomprise the most fertile and adventurous critique of a geo-political tradition .Working with Carl Dahlman, 6 Thathailadvanced his analyses of Bosnia by comparing official political discourse, the language and practical impacts of treatiesand legislation, and personal experiencesrecounted by interviewecs. Exploring howthe often brutal process of ethnic cleansing established new facts on the groundthat shaped subsequent land allocationsand created new landscapers] of land plotsand housing settlements 6 Thathail andDahlman, 2006: 305), 6 Thathail extendscritical geo-politics to interrogate both thematerial and discursive process of stateformation.

KEY ADVANCES ANDCONTROVERSIES

In the name of heterogeneity and flexibility, 6 Thathail frequently avoidsdefining critical geopolitics , geopolitics , territory , space and sovereignty .

Some critics question such definitionalmalleability, claiming that this, coupledwith the diverse philosophical sourcesdrawn upon by 6 Thathail, producetheoretically inconstant assessments(Stephanson, 2000: 381). Others contend that 6 l uathaiJ s work representsan extreme critical geopolitics and istoo dismissive of, and disinterest[ed],in, theorisation (Kelly, 2006: 35, 40). Further, Kelly (2006: 42-3) maintains thatalthough 6 Thathail and colleagues havetaken the understanding of geo-politicsbeyond current thought and practice inpolitical science, despite their suggestionthat a critical approach is a step towardsemancipation and the ending of hege

monic exploitation, critical geo-politicsoffers neither a clear characterisation ofa better society nor a specific road mapfor attaining such an improvement.

Critical Geopolitics 6 I uathail, 1996a)was well received. Heffernan (2000: 347)comments that the book is [i]maginative,intellectually ambitious ... engaging [and]outstanding and Sharp (2000: 361) claimsCritical Geopolitics to be vital . The textstimulated a symposium at the annualmeeting of the Association of AmericanGeographers in 1997, subsequently published in Political Geography. In the ensuing debate, three contentions emerged.Firstly, 6 I uathail is challenged for overrelying on textual data to the detriment ofother empirical materials, such as maps,something that is curious given the importance of visual representation to both thegeographical imagination and foreign policy strategy (see Heffernan, 2000; Smith,2000; Sparke, 2000; Stephanson, 2000) .Secondly, issues of embodiment and positionality of both author and subjects wereraised; as were, thirdly, contentions that 6Thathail s text is inadvertently elitist, focusing on a few great men in the field of geopolitics (Sharp, 2000), some suggesting that6 Thathail does not do enough to locatehimself outside this canon. Dodds (1998)


5/7


adds that 6 Tuathail s focus is over to intellectual games of deconstructionw helmingly Anglo-American. rather than empirical assessments of the

In sum, critics suggest tbat 6 Tuathail material impacts of geo-politics on peois guilty of what he aenlties in others - an ple s Jives. 6 Thathail (2000c) responded toassertion of a transn:lldclllal viewpoint these challenges, and his subsequent workfrom where the world ,mel its political demonstrates an expansion of critical geoorder can be viewed t ht lIi rference being politics beyond the texts of policy elites tothat 6 Tuathail lakes l nnmtcrhegemonic studies detailing the processes of post-warrather than hegenH1ni( pt rspective. Sharp house building and settlement in Bosnia(2000) maintains thilt () J uillhail elides and examining geo -political discourse ingeo-political discours( . iill other fields, popular films such as 200 J s ehind Enemysuch as popular cu lture , nnd Smith (2000: Lilies (61uathail, 2005b). Stimulated by 6367) maintains that illtllOl1gh 6 Tuathail TuallHlil s influential contributioll to cr itiis sensitive to [rleadin g r;lcc and gender Cil] geopolitics - he magnanimollsly credinto the texts of geopolitics , lhit> is simul its eter Taylor with c()ining this termtaneously a way ur reil


6/7

Gear6id Tuathail Gerard Toal)

Dahlman , C. and 6 Tuatha il , G. (2005b) 'The legacy of ethnic cleansing: the returns process in post-Dayton Bosn ia', PoliticalGeography, 24: 569-99.

Dalby,S. and 6Tuathail, G. (1996) 'Editorial introduction: the critical geopo litics constellation: problematizing fusions of geographicalknowledge and power', Political Geography 15: 451-6.

Dodds, K. (1998) 'Review of Critical Geopolitics , Economic Geography, 74: 77-9.Dodds, K. (2001) 'Political geography III: critical geopolitics after ten years' , Progress in Human Geography 25: 469-84.Heffernan, M. (2000) 'Balancing visions: comments on Gear6id 6 Tuatha il's critical geopolitics', Political Geography 19: 347-52.Kelly, P (2006) 'Acritique of critical geopolitics', Geopolitics 11: 24-53.Kolossov,V. and 6 Tuathail, G. (2007) 'An empire's fraying edge? The North Caucasus instability in Russian geopolitical culture' ,

Eurasian Geography and Economics48: 202- 25.O'Lough lin, J., 6 Tuathail , G. and Kolossov, V. (2004) 'A risky westward turn"? Putin 's9-11 script and ordinary Russians ', Europe

Asia Studies, 56: 3-34.Oloughlin, J., 6Tuathail , G. and Kolossov,V. (2006) 'The geop; litlca lorienta tions of ordinary Russians: a public opinion analys is',Eurasian Geography and Economics 47: 158-81.

Oloughlin, J., 6 Tuathai l, G.and Kolossov, V (2008) 'The localized geopolitics of disp lacement and return in Eastern PrigorodnyyRayon, North Ossetia ', Eurasian Geography and Economics, 49: 635- 99.6Tuathail, G. (1986) 'The language and nature of the "new" geopolitics: The case of US-EI Salvador relations' , Political GeographyQuarterly S: 73 85.6Tuathail, G. 1 989) 'Critical geopolitics: the soc ial construction of place and space in the practice of statecraft', Unpublished PhDdissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse.6 Tuathail, G. (1992) 'Putting Mackinder in his place: material transformations and myth ', Political Geography 11: 100-18.6 Tuathail, G. (1994) 'The critical reading/writing of geopolitics: re -reading/writing Wittfogel, Bowman and Lacoste ', Progress inHuman Geography, 18: 313-32.6 Tuathail, G. (1996b) 'An anti-geopolitica l eye? Maggie O'Kane in Bosnia, 1992-94', Gender, Place and Culture, 3: 171-85.6 Tuathail, G. (1997 [1993]) 'The effacement of place? US foreign policy and the spatiality of the Gulf Crisis' , in J Agnew (ed.),Political Geography: A Reader. London: Edward Arnold. pp. 140-64.6 Tuathail , G. (1999) 'A strategic sign: the geopolitical sign ificance of Bosnia" in US foreign policy ', Environment and Planning 0:Society and Space 17: 515-33.6 Tuathail, G. (2000a) 'Spiritual geopolitics: Father Edmund Walsh and Jesuit anticommunism' , n K. Dodds and D. Atkinson (eds),Geopolitical Traditions: A Century of Geopolitical Thought. London: Routledge. pp. 187- 210.6 Tuathail , G. (2000b ) 'The postmodern geopolitical condition: states, statecraft, and security into the twenty-first century ', Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 90: 166-78.6 Tuathai l, G. (2001) 'A geopo litical discourse with Robert McNamara', Geopolitics, 5: 129-44.6 Tuathail, G. (2002a). 'Theorizing practical geopo litical reason ing: the case of US Bosnia po licy in 1992', Political Geography21: 601-28.6 Tuathail , G. (2002b) 'Post-Co ld War geopolitics: contrasting superpowers in a world of global dangers', in R. J. Johnston ,P. Taylor and M. Watts (eds), Geographies of Global Change. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 174-89.6 Tuathai l, G. (2005a) 'Geopoli tical discourse: a conversation with Peter Galbraith about Iraq and state building', Geopolitics, 10:167-83.6 Tuathail , G. (2005b) 'The frustrations of geopo litics and the pleasures of war: Behind Enemy Lines and American geopoliticalculture', Geopolitics, 10: 356-77.6 Tuathail , G. (2006) 'Geopolitical discourse: Paddy Ashdown and the tenth anniversary of the Dayton Peace Accords' , Geopoli-tics, 11: 141-58.6 Tuathail , G. (2008a) 'The Hamiltonian nationalist: a conversation with Michael Lind ', Geopolitics 13: 169-80.6 Tuathail, G. (2008b) 'Russia's Kosovo: a critical geopol itics of the August 2008 war over South Ossetia', Eurasian Geographyand Econom ies 49: 670-705.6 Tuathail, G. and Dahlman, C. (2004) 'The effort to reverse ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina: the limits of returns',Eurasian Geography and Economics, 45: 429-53 .6 Tuathail, G. and Dalby, S. (1994) 'Editorial: critical geopoli tics - unfolding spaces for thought in geography and global politics' ,Environment and Planning 0: Society and Space, 12: 513- 14.6 Tuathail, G. and Dalby, S. (1998b) 'Introduction: rethinking geopolitics - towards a critica l geopolitics ', in G. 6 Tuathail andS. Dalby (eds), Rethinking Geopolitics. London: Routledge. pp.1 - 15.

Painter, J. (1995) Politics Geography and Political Geography : ACritical Perspective. London: Arnold.Sharp, J. P (2000) 'Remasculinising geo-politics? Comments on Gear6id 6 Tuathail 's Critical Geopolitics Political Geography,

19: 361-4.


7/7


Smith, N. (2000) Is a critical geopo litics possible? Foucault, class and the vision th ing , Political Geography, 19: 365-71.Sparke, M. (2000) Graphing the geo in geo-political: Critical Geopolitics and the re-visioning of responsibility , Political Geography,

19: 373-80.Stephanson, A. (2000) Commentary on Gear6id 0 Tuathail s Critical Geopolitics , Political Geography, 19: 381-3.Toal, G/O Tuathail , G. (2000c) Dis/placing the geo-politics which one cannot not want , Political Geography, 19: 385-90.

Euan Hague DePaul University

Gerard Toal

Documents

Transcript of Gerard Toal