Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf; Majid Gholami
Abstract
Regimes are a well-known theory in political studies and international relations that is widely used in the analysis of transnational and global phenomena. Although the concept of "power" plays a key role in the process of forming the concept of regimes, so far the scientific literature of the geopolitical ...
Read More
Regimes are a well-known theory in political studies and international relations that is widely used in the analysis of transnational and global phenomena. Although the concept of "power" plays a key role in the process of forming the concept of regimes, so far the scientific literature of the geopolitical field to study these phenomena has not been used, unfortunately. Accordingly, the geopolitical explanation of the concept and role of "regimes" in geopolitical structures and the introduction of this concept analysis in the field of geopolitics is the subject of this article. The main question is how to explain the structure and function of the concept of regimes with a geopolitical approach? In response to this question, using a descriptive-analytical method and using library sources, the hypothesis of the article is that “regime is a complex structure of objective and subjective agents that directly or indirectly is responsible for the political organization of the geopolitical structure. It controls the function of the structure and generates power by the spatial distribution of power among the components of this structure. In fact, regimes are the regulators of the functioning of geopolitical structures and system governance”. Findings show that mental regimes are the subject of social studies, political studies, and international relations, and in particular, are not the subject of discussion in the field of geopolitics, but they are the subject of our discussion in the field of geopolitics when they are objectified in the form of institutions and organizations and affect geographical environments.
zahra Ahmadipour; Navid Sarbaz koltappeh
Abstract
Urban space is the strategic scene for understanding the dynamics of social order reconfiguration. It is like a hegemonic tool of the dominant class to reproduce its domination. In this scene, we always see the struggles of two resistance discourses to dominate the geographical space. The formation of ...
Read More
Urban space is the strategic scene for understanding the dynamics of social order reconfiguration. It is like a hegemonic tool of the dominant class to reproduce its domination. In this scene, we always see the struggles of two resistance discourses to dominate the geographical space. The formation of the resistance discourse in the urban space goes through a process and the main purpose of this article is to explain this process. This article employs a descriptive-analytical research approach and relies on library resources for gathering information. The findings indicate that the initial ignition of the resistance discourse originates from policy critique and problem identification. It persists until a political crisis has been occurred. Local dissatisfactions prompt individuals to step out of their personal spheres and engage in discussions with others regarding shared concerns, the formation of collective notions and narratives concerning their living environment. The forced displacement and systematic deprivation of living spaces expedite the strengthening of urban residents' ability to safeguard the production of space. Engaging in recurrent social movements generates an emotional experience that intensifies individuals' connections to social and collective movements. The mobilization happening within the local community plays a crucial role and engages various individuals and encouraging their participation in public activities. It involves developing effective means of communication and emotional resources that empower new activists to dedicate their time and efforts.
abdolvahab khojamli; Zahra Ahmadypour; Mohammadreza Hafeznia; Mohammadreza Pourjafar
Abstract
Extended abstract
1. Introduction
The current paper is intended to explain geopolitics of urban landscape, and also to present a theoretical model. The relation between politics and power and urban semiotics system in geographic spaces and in particular in urban spaces forms geopolitics of urban landscape. ...
Read More
Extended abstract
1. Introduction
The current paper is intended to explain geopolitics of urban landscape, and also to present a theoretical model. The relation between politics and power and urban semiotics system in geographic spaces and in particular in urban spaces forms geopolitics of urban landscape. The paper presents new approaches to the scholars of urban geopolitics and urban political geography.
2. Theoretical Framework
The paper is intended to present a theoretical framework to study geopolitics of landscape regarding the relation between politics and power and urban semiotic system and dominant political, social and economic discourses. When a landscape would be called a geopolitical urban landscape? What kind of processes and factors has geopolitics of urban landscape? What are the levels of formation of urban semiotic system and how they are affected by different factors? What are the general and political functions of urban semiotic system, and what kind of criteria forms them? What are the benefits and deficiencies of the symbols? And finally what is the impact of these relations on urban semiotic system and urban space discourses?
3. Methodology
The research is basic in terms of its goal, and casual and descriptive- analytic in terms of method and nature. The data gathering procedure is based on the library findings. Data analysis and conclusion will be done using the qualitative research method.
4. Results & Discussion
Landscape, similarly to language, can operate as a representational system – signs, places and icons can be read and interpreted as geosymbols or icons. Power over landscape is usually visualized in the most picturesque, stable, perceptible and spectacular ways. Ruling over landscape, both forms, function, and particularly meanings, becomes one of the priorities of power, especially of those, whose legitimacy is or can be somehow challenged. The need to show his or her rights, authority, control, as well as supermacy and prerogatives is tremendous and typically materialized in grand culttural landscape projects. Those project usually expound not only political and economic powers, but also, and often above any other, the cultueral dominance of new leaders and discourses. The messages coded in cultural landscape are typically very clearly readable for most of society, and are frequently enhanced by heavily marketed texts.
The function of power and politics in urban semiotic system paves the way to expalin geopolitics of landscape. Policies of different groups in urban spaces are affected by their power. Their power in urban spaces is emanated from different urban semiotics systems that gained from local, national and supra-national levels and has political, social, economic and historical facets. Different groups haves different potentials to take the advanteges of the levels and facets regarding their ideologic background and the level of mitigation of their interests with the dominant ideology. Also, their freedom in using the symbols and change in urban semiotics systems depends on players of power and their respected institutions.
Urban icons and symbols are a part of urban players tools to create discources in accordance with their interests. Urban players act in the frame of their discources and the stronger discources, the effective functions. Hisorical and ideologic background, institutions, social and cutural characteristics, groups’ interests and their discourses set the criteria to change in urban semiotic system and urban symbols; the changes that are realized in the froms of destructions or construction of symbols, omition or disclusion of symbols and relocation and change in their functions. All of the processes are done in order to improve the function of urban semiotic system and urban symbols or to reform their functions and alleviate abnormalities.
5. Conclusions & Suggestions
Actions and reactions, factors and structures in urban spaces create an area of power relations such as cooperation, interaction, rivalry and disputation that the occupation of desired spaces to settle the respected icons or display the symbols of their discources are claimed in urban spaces that results in “the war of icons” between different players who have contradictory interests. This causes an area of power relations which is the result of mutual relation between urban semiotics systems and the political actors that forms geopolitics of landscape.
So, geopolitics of landscape is a process that based on it the dominant discourse creates different landscapes to control and manage urban spaces in line with its political and geopolitical order, and competition to control urban spaces is subordinated to relation between power, politics and space. Geopolitics of landscape studies the process of image making by urban players, the management of urban relations, urban space bordering, the relation between the state and non-governmental institutions.
