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.
Hassan Noorali; Zahra Pishgahifard
Abstract
The global geopolitical order became fluid after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we witnessed a shift in dimensions from geostrategy to economic and cultural dimensions in the last decades of the twentieth century. Meanwhile, Wallerstein's theory of geoculture and Huntington's ...
Read More
The global geopolitical order became fluid after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we witnessed a shift in dimensions from geostrategy to economic and cultural dimensions in the last decades of the twentieth century. Meanwhile, Wallerstein's theory of geoculture and Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations did not work out well, so we are witnessing the formation of a "geopolinomics" order in the 21st century that was previously conceptualized by "Demko and Wood" and "kazi". Using their terminology, the authors present a new theory called the "geopolinomical structure of the world system" for the 21st century, which is based on the components of economics, politics and geography. The present article is of the type of fundamental and theoretical research and the information and raw materials of the analysis are obtained by the library method and by using scientific books and articles, as well as valid or reference websites.The results show that in the modern geopolinomical order, a fragile multipolar equilibrium has been formed with the axis of the four powers of the United States, China, Russia and India, and energy and ports, along with corridors and geotransit routes are geopolinomical components. These factors have given rise to the "geographical gravity of power rivalry" in Central Asian-Eurasia as the "ecumene" of the structure.
Ehsan Lashgari Tafreshi
Abstract
Cognition the political effects on the production of geographic space, is one of the topics that has different interpretation in distinct cognitive schools, including relativism epistemic. In the Epistemic relativism, in the framework of mental ontology, there is no obligation to achieve absolute ideal ...
Read More
Cognition the political effects on the production of geographic space, is one of the topics that has different interpretation in distinct cognitive schools, including relativism epistemic. In the Epistemic relativism, in the framework of mental ontology, there is no obligation to achieve absolute ideal and value. In this cognitive system, there is assumption that the cognition of the political-historical discourses function in the production of various dimensions of geographical space It is not possible to rely on positivist approach. in this research, with rely on descriptive-analytic method in the first phase, for definition of geographical space has been considered a special place for political-ideological discourses. Then, with paying attention to the features of political-historical discourses, is achieved This recognition that there is greater possibility for relativism epistemic for understanding who production of geographic space. Research findings indicate that the changes in the phenomena and processes in the geographic space are largely due to the political-historical discourses changes. Therefore, Geographic space has dedicated features and is non-extensible. In recognizing who production and rebuild the geographic space cannot be use necessarily from inductive and empirical epistemology.
Ehsan lashgari Tafreshi
Abstract
Extended abstract
1. Introduction
In geographic sciences, one of the most important schools of methodology is the school of positivism. This school has had a special function in conceptualizing geographic sciences, including political geography. Political geographers affected by the positivism ...
Read More
Extended abstract
1. Introduction
In geographic sciences, one of the most important schools of methodology is the school of positivism. This school has had a special function in conceptualizing geographic sciences, including political geography. Political geographers affected by the positivism school believed that the interactions between politics and space will lead to particular spatial form and processes which can be studied only within the framework of this school. One of the consequences of applying positivism is to create the potential for classifying and enclosing space and constructing a geographic scale based on the performance of a government or country. In this research, has been struggled to introduce a new category of how to understand the relationship between politics and geographic space in the positivism methodology within framework of scale.
2 .Method
In this research that has applied the fundamental approaches in the philosophy of geography valid documents and bibliographic sources have been used to collect data. In this study, in the first step, the concepts of space and cognition were defined using descriptive and analytical approaches. Then, the definition of space has been accorded with characteristics of the positivism cognition school.
Results and Discussion
The conceptual content of politics has a special feature which makes it possible to achieve the recognition of space in a specific pattern of positivism. In addition, the political construction of a geographic scale of two national scale, including a state / country and transnational scale, including the transnational scale makes different patterns for studying the relationship between politics and space. The results of these approaches are as follows:
A- Political Geography as Territorial Governance
National sovereignty remains as the most influential force in knowing how national and sub-national areas operate. Because the prioritization and allocation of resources influenced by the ruling political institutions do not follow similar processes among different countries and generalization, inductive thinking about it is not feasible. Because with the change of political perspectives and with the advent of new leaders, gradually, the natural and human dimensions of the geographic space on the scale of the country are changing and evolving, this view sought to combine space studies with development topics and emphasize on the fact that spatial structures have discoverable features that can be used in spatial organization. But, one of the philosophical foundations of changes in various dimensions of space is the change and rebuilding of policies, and the replacement of new forces in decision making and implementation of these policies in all levels, especially, in the level of nation-state. This process is considered by studying political geography.
B- Geopolitics as a territoriality of sovereignty in transnational scale
In the territory of a country, the sovereignty is the highest power of ordering, which is based on the social contract theory to organize and control the territoriality behaviors of human and social classes in competition with each other. But, there is no such organizing force in the metropolitan area, and the victory in power-based competition determines the extent of state domination. In the international space, there is no such organizing force, too, and victory in competitions determines the limits of state domination. Thus, the most territoriality behaviors and objectives are organized by states. From this perspective, human-made and natural data in relations between countries can create the motivation for territoriality and these behaviors will not be stopped unless the other could be stopped from acting. Geopolitics provides the geographic framework for understanding the conflicts between countries and regional blocks and explains territoriality behaviors of countries based on natural and human geographic data, and finally, leads to studying the consequences of these processes. On the other hand, because of the geopolitical conceptual nature, geopolitical experts cannot necessarily use the empirical approach in recognizing this relationship. In other words, geopolitics in its content has not a quantitative nature and experts should use deductive approaches. Because, in recognizing the geopolitical importance of the regions, qualitative factors such as political economy, ideology and social origins of political leaders also have an effect that does not have the capacity to become quantitative indicators. Historically, the views of many geopolitical scholars have shown that their geopolitical explanations have been created by deductive approaches. Therefore, gaining more power by governments depends on how they pursue the appropriate geopolitical policies.
4. Conclusion
The findings of this research reveal that the element of geographical space has a systematic nature in the positivism, but two national and sub-national scales have different contents with transnational scale. In other words, in the context of positivism, the study of the political dimension of the geographical space is different from two national and transnational political scales. In a national scale, recognizing the relationship between politics and space within the borders of a country includes national and sub-national scales, but in the transnational scale, the relationship between sovereignty and space is the result of a kind of territorialism that exists between countries and builds geopolitical concepts and ideas. Moreover, since politics, both national and sub-national and transnational, contains elements and components that have little quantitative capability, consequently, researchers should pay more attention to positivism. Therefore, applied geopolitical studies have been more widely considered in the positivism methodology as the explanation in the methodological dimension takes on operational dimensions
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.
