VISUALIZATION OF SPACE IN GEOPOLITICS: TO THE PROBLEM OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE METHOD

Abstract

Проведен сравнительный анализ средств визуализации пространства в истории геополитики как науки. До середины XX века в геополитике существовало два основных подхода к пространству, которые в процессе визуализации делали акценты на различные объекты. Основоположники геополитики Ф. Ратцель и Р. Челлен для объяснения взаимосвязей пространства и государства использовали под влиянием органицизма и социал-дарвинизма образные биологические метафоры в качестве онтологии. Это приводило к политизации природных характеристик пространства и деполитизации политических по своей сущности явлений и процессов, что способствовало образованию в науке политических мифологем. В работах А. Мэхэна, Х. Маккиндера, К. Хаусхофера делался акцент на процессы международной конкуренции за пространство, в качестве средств визуализации они использовали геополитические карты. Связь с географией сближала данное направление с естественными науками и обеспечивала ему соответствие канонам научной рациональности, которые задавал позитивизм. Геополитики «перекраивали» географические карты в соответствии с основным предметом исследования – процессами борьбы государств за мировое пространство. Такие карты описывают или прогнозируют расколы мирового политического пространства, способны приписывать конкретное смысловое содержание зонам пространства, включенным в них сообществам и идентичностям. Проблемы использования геополитических карт для интерпретации современных процессов показаны на примере модели хартленда Х. Маккиндера. Современные способы визуализации в геополитике раскрыты на примере теории Р. Коллинза. Обзор эволюции способов визуализации в геополитике показал, что развитие шло от образных метафор к строгим, построенным в форме «если–то» утверждений дескриптивным моделям. The article presents a comparative analysis of space visualization tools in the history of geopolitical science. Until the middle of the 20th century, there were two main approaches to space that accented various objects in the process of visualization. The founders of geopolitics Friedrich Ratzel and Rudolf Kjellen were influenced by organicism and social Darwinism, so they used figurative metaphors to explain the relationship between space and the state. Biological metaphors have been used as ontology of the state that led to the politicization of the natural characteristics of space and the depoliticization of really political phenomena and processes. The result was the emergence of political mythologems in science. Alfred Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Karl Haushofer studied the processes of international competition for world domination in their works. Geopolitical maps were used as visualization tools. The connection with geography brought their theoretical constructions closer to those of natural sciences and ensured compliance with the requirements of scientific rationality, which were required by positivism. A comparative analysis of geopolitical and geographical maps showed that geopoliticians “redrew” geographical maps in accordance with the main object of the study – the processes of the struggle of states for world space. Geopolitical maps focus the viewer’s attention on existing or possible areas of conflict of interest between competing powers in unstable regions of the world. Geopolitical maps describe or predict breaks in the global political space. They are able to attribute specific semantic content to the zones of space, as well as to the communities and identities included in them. Geopolitical maps, unlike geographical ones, do not exist without texts, since any of them is only an illustration of the scientist’s ideas. The problems of using geopolitical maps to interpret the processes of modernity were shown by the example of Mackinder’s heartland model. At the present stage, there are several key zones in the world, and the modern idea of the location of the heartland depends on the subjective positions of scientists. Attempts to bring the theory model in line with political reality lead to a significant distortion of the authentic model or a narrowing of the empirical field of Mackinder’s theoretical construction. Despite the existing problems and justified criticism, the rejection of Mackinder’s heritage would mean significant losses not only in the field of the history of geopolitical thought, but also for studies of competition for territorial control in the modern world. Modern methods of visualization in geopolitics were illustrated by Randall Collins’ theory of geopolitical dynamics. The review of the evolution of visualization methods in geopolitics led to the conclusion that the development of the scientific method proceeded from figurative metaphors to strict descriptive models built in the form of “if–then” statements that make nomological explanation and prediction possible.