GLOBALIZATION: THE GEOGRAPHICAL NEXUS

This is the pre-print version submitted to Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Geography in May 2017 UDC 911 . і к ,к и іч и к . и к ,к и ич ки к V. Kiptenko, PhD Geography GLOBALIZATION: THE GEOGRAPHICAL NEXUS : Е Е Е І І : Е І Е Geography as both a discipline and wide discourse explicitly aims to conceive the Earth as a whole. Human geography contributed a lot to the critical study of globalization. However, the academic inquiry suggests the lack of conceptualization, which can serve as a readable scholarly framework, teaching and learning in particular. This article scopes the weave of terms related to globalization and geography based on the Dictionary of Human Geography. Acknowledging the reservations of the Dictionary of Human Geography itself and understanding the limitations of the survey based on yet one dictionary this article ponders on the foundations, which can framework the geographical approach to globalization. Focus on detecting the key concepts mentioned in the topical article, clarifying their interpretation and logical context for geographical nexus paves the way for platforming the systemized and generalized conceptualization. The basic concepts of economics and social sciences design the ‘flat-аorld’ metaphor. The last serves to the vital task of human geography aimed to disclosure of taken-for-granted geographical imaginary and an investigation of its (often unacknowledged) effects, thus, geographical conceptualization of globalization. Geographic arguments serve as an integral part of the logic of the ‘flat-аorld’ geographic imaginarв of globaliгation debunking. The evolution of academic responses to the ‘political version’ of the аorld’s general state suggests essence, limitations and further development of sceptical, parameterized, geographically sensitive approaches, and counterhegemonic critique of neo-liberal globalization. The disciplinary nexus of globalization implicitly refers to economic, industrial and agricultural, population and labour, urban and rural, regional, contrapuntal and feminist geographies. Moreover, the context of the above consideration reinforces the role of human and physical the geographies and the formal theories of location and spatialization, in particular. Notions of spatial organization, place-transcending and place-remaking dynamics deterritorialization and reterritorialization, etc. suggest the need for further reverse exploration of over thirty geographical concepts and terms - the space, the place, the territory, etc. - in the context of globalization discourse. The mental map of the conceptual framework of globalization and geographical nexus summarizes the key findings. Key words: globalization, geography, conceptual framework. Introduction. Geography, human in particular, contributed a lot to the critical study of globalization [6,viii]. The Dictionary of Human Geography (further the DHG) [6] refers over 80 publications having ‘globaliгation’ in their titles. One can hardly pretend to review the huge number of other scientific works related to the topic. The ongoing formation of geography has been intimately involved with the changing capacity to conceive the Earth as a whole [5; 6, p.290]. However, the academic inquiry suggests the lack of systemized and generalized conceptualization, which can serve as a readable scholarly framework, teaching and learning in particular. Thus, this scoping study aims to trace the weave of contemporary geographic knowledge and globalization discourse. The encyclopaedic format of the DHG seems to facilitate this purpose, yet uneasy one. The objectives focus on detecting the key concepts mentioned in the topical article, clarifying their interpretation and logical context for geographical nexus. Following the DHG format the capital letters mark the concepts in this text while underlining flags the geographically sensitive notions and terms. The DHG serves as the key bibliography source added by just several presumably important to this article references. Acknowledging the reservations of the DHG itself [6, p.289] and understanding the limitations of the survey based on yet one dictionary this article ponders on the foundations, which can framework the geographical approach to globalization. Key findings. The ‘GLOBALIZATION’ article references 35 terms including 13 of them further mentioned in the index part of the DHG among related 89 items in total. The basic concepts of economics and social sciences design the ‘flat-аorld’ metaphor [7; 8] (Table.1). The evolution of academic responses to the ‘political version’ of the аorld’s general state suggests essence, limitations and further development of skeptical, parameterized, geographically sensitive approaches, and counterhegemonic critique of neo-liberal globalization (Figure 1). The logic of debunking of the myths of the globalization (new-ness, inevitability, leveler effect) DISCOURSE includes geographical arguments as an integral part. The last serves to the vital task of HUMAN GEOGRAPHY aimed to disclosure of taken-for-granted GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGINARY and an investigation of its (often unacknowledged) effects [6,p.282), thus, geographical conceptualization of globalization. GEOGRAPHY contributed to knowing and rendering the world and variable intersections between CAPITALISM, WAR and GLOBALIZATION by development of its sub-fields including inculcation of ‘SENSE OF PLACE’ and production of allegiances, connections and divisions within it [9; 6, p.291] The GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGINARY represents the spatial ordering of the TAKEN-FOR-GRANTED WORLD [6, p.282] as a concept inspired itself by HUMANISTIC GEOGRAPHY [6, p.741] and used in DHG ‘GLOBALIZATION’ in relation to the logical paradox of the instrumental political use of the neo-liberal discourse of globalization [6, p.309]. The last deliberately replaced CAPITALISM in the 1980s and 1990s [6, p.59] and, emphasizing free-MARKET notion, Table 1. Conceptual framework of GLOBALIZATION [ 6, 7, 8, 10, 11-15, 16, 17, 18] Terms and approaches DISCOURSE MODERNIZATION Concepts GLOBALIZATION Logic context Political version INTEGRATION CAPITALISM NEO-LIBERALISM TAKEN-FOR-GRANTED WORLD MARKET GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGINARY Academic responses Historical irony Flat world' –myths new-ness Inevitability Leveller universal inter-dependence of nations Logical paradox TAKEN-FOR-GRANTED WORLD limitations 1. Sceptical: globalization is nothing but hype ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IMPERIALISM TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS limitations 2. Parameterized globalization: the widening, deepening and speeding up of global interconnectedness TRANSNATIONALISM EXCEPTION, SPACE OF UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT TIME-SPACE DISTANCIATION end of geography disclosure TIME-SPACE COMPRESSION 3. Geographically sensitive approach: new forms of uneven development created by capitalism 4. Repudiation of 'impact model' of globalization: counter-hegemonic critiques of neo-liberal globalization FRICTION OF DISTANCE CAPITAL ACCUMULATION GEOPOLITICS GOVERNANCE INTERNATIOTAL MONETARY FUND COMMODITY CHINS TRADE CONSUMPTION GLOCALIZATION LOCAL-GLOBAL RELATIONS HEGEMONY PRIVARIZATION ETHNOGRAPHIES POWER-GEOMETRIES debunking strategies Legend: INTEGRATION – referenced both in the DHG ‘GLOBALIZATION’ article ECONOMIC INTEHRATION – not referenced in the DHG ‘GLOBALIZATION’ article but listed in the indeб to DHG MARKET – referenced in the DHG ‘GLOBALIZATION’ article but listed in the index to DHG ACADEMIC RESPONSES to 'FLAT-WORLD' GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGINARY 1. Sceptical 2. Parameterized Globalization is a myth, nothing but hype A pocess which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions.. generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and the exercise of poаer’ globe-spanning EONOMIC INGTEGRATION IMPERIALISM limitations NETWORKS enterprise TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS global networks parameters: extensity, intensity, velocity and impact global integration dynamics globally shared forms of common fate 3. Geographically sensitive New forms of uneven development involving both deterritorialization and retorritorialization created by capitalism limitations COSMOPOLITANISM TRANSNATIONALISM discrepant cosmopolitanism EXCEPTION, SPACES OF UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT TIME-SPACE DISTANCIATION end of geography capitalism shrink distance TIME-SPACE COMPRESSION deterritorializing efforts FRICTION OF DISTANCE reterritorializing spatial fix CAPITAL ACCUMULATION AMERICAN EMPIRE tensions between place transcending and placeremaking dynamics on a global scale GEOPOLITICS GOVERNANCE COMMODITY CHAINS TRADE CONSUMPTION GLOCALIZATION LOCAL-GLOBAL RELATIONS 4. Counter-hegemonic critiques HEGEMONY DISCOURSE forced PRIVATIZATION of public goods and spaces ETHNOGRAPHIES of the ties between places and people strategies for debunking inavitebility ideology: the emergence and marketing of globalization discourse charting; "World bank Literature', business schooling and business-funded think tanks reengineering; uneven implementation in business practicies; impact as a form of geoeconomics ; feminist critiques of the real POWER-GEOMENTRIES Legend: INTEGRATION – referenced both in the DHG ‘GLOBALIZATION’ article ECONOMIC INTEHRATION – not referenced in the the DHG ‘GLOBALIZATION’ article but listed in the indeб to DHG MARKET – referenced in the DHG ‘GLOBALIZATION’ article but listed in the indeб to DHG Political version – logical context Spatial fix - presented in italic in the DHG ‘GLOBALIZATION’ article Geographically sensitive - geographical nexus Figure 1. Mental map of globalization and geographical nexus conceptual framework [ 6, 7, 8, 10, 11-15, 16, 17, 18] constituted a driving idea behind globalization understood as unstoppable global INTEGRATION [7; 8]. The notion of the historical ironв of globaliгation’s mвths and further elaborations of academic approaches [e.g. 16] argue for earlier globespanning ECONOMIC INTEGRATION since ‘the need of a constantlв eбpanding MARKET for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe’ [18, p.38] as a result of IMPERIALISM. In addition to sceptics and other scholars reasoning the geographical considerations inure disavowal of the ideas about the role of border-crossing TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS and free market fundamentalism. Since the 1970s geographers have been particularly concerned to address the relations between SPACE, environment and the reproduction of capitalist system [6, p.62]. The geographical conceptualization of GLOBALIZATION inherently embraces the re-reading of CAPITALISM based on the ‘spatial fix’ (FRICTION OF DISTANCE) concept [12]; explorations of ways in which CAPITAL as a social relation has spatial and ecological expressions (e.g. geography of ACCUMULATION or INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS) [6, p.59]; representations of space-nature-capitalism triumvirate on spatial division of labour, UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT (thus, AREAL DIFFERENTIATION; INEQUALITY,SPATIAL); trajectories of capitalism, neo-liberalism (free MARKET), and DEVELOPMENT, etc.[6, p.62]. Explicitly, changes in the nature of global capitalism raise issues of interconnectivity, involving people, things and other FLOWS (TRANSNATIONALISM) crossing the cultural and/or territorial borders (TERRITORY, TERRITORIALITY, TERRITORIALIZATION) of the NATION STATE. Explicitly INTEGRATION takes place through – not merely over – TIME and SPACE [6, p.387] accentuating the varied porosity of PLACE both benefiting and enriching the explorations of AREAL DIFFERENTIATION; INEQUALITY,SPATIAL together with geographically sensitive images of the NORTH-SOUTH and ‘the neа IMPERIALISM’ [13]. Geography – as both a discipline and wide discourse - forged the IMPERIALISM inherent meaning as unequal human and territorial relationships, usually in the form of EMPIRE [p.373]. Yet, it contributed critical approaches by a large literature on the specificity of imperial power, relations between the phases of capitalist accumulation and forms of imperialism, cycles of global dominance. It also spurred interdisciplinary interest in the culturally and spatially constructed nature of Western knoаledge about the ‘Other’ (ORIENTALISM) and the locational platforms of IMPERIALISM based on mobilization of web and NETWORK concepts [6, p.373-374]. NETWORK(s) represent a particular kind of spatial arrangement that consist of a collection of linked elements which typically exhibit a decentred and non-hierarchical form [6, p.498]. In fact, the topological METAPHOR of the network presumes various analytical undertakings, both explicit and implicit, in relation to INFRASTUCTURE, SOCIAL NETWORKS, ACTOR-NETWORKS and network-based models of organization merging the distinctive features of the first two approaches, as the nature of collectives from the informal and local to formal and global are increasingly seen as exhibiting this kind of form [ 2]. The above context reveals grounds for considering globalization as ‘a process аhich embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact - generating transcontinental or interregional FLOWS and networks of activity, interaction and the eбercise of poаer’ [16, p.16]. The exhaustive study of consequential global interconnectedness [Held et.al.] so far serves as an empirically rich platform of understanding the role of global integration in creation of globally shared forms of common fate and varied sorts of space-spanning networks over time [6, p.310]. Further exploration of globalizing society [e.g. 2,3,4] in terms of accelerated FLOWS (economic, cultural and social) mediated by information technologies reveal the growth of networked enterprises, global processes of SOCIAL EXCLUSION and the changing nature of TIME and SPACE, IDENTITY AND STATE formation. Such considerations argument that NETWORK societies are dominated by a separation of the space of flows – the globalized and accelerated domains that are orchestrated through new information and communication technologies – from space of places – geographically confined sources of individual and collective IDENTITY [6, 498]. In addition to clear notion that ‘the space of floаs is not placeless’ [2, p.416], considerations of how the flows create geographical integration and differentiation at the very same time [1] countering of the end of geography argument [6, p.258]. The last recalls the conceptual reasoning of the TIME-SPACE COMPRESSION (and its corollary/dual TIMESPACE EXPANSION) missed in reflections of TIME-SPACE DISTANTIATION and TIME-SPACE CONVERGENCE [6, 757761]. Together with the critique of COSMOPOLITANISM and idealistic TRANSNATIONALISM notions the elaboration of EXCEPTION, SPACES OF concept clarify the new forms of UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT involving both deterritorializing and reterritorializing [11; 12; 15] sense of GLOBALIZATION. The last further actualizes considerations on the role of tensions between place-transcending and place-remaking dynamics on a global scale [Harvey, 2004b] together with explorations of the diverse forms of contemporary BORDER hardening and interest to GLOCALIZATION as a way of exploring reciprocal LOCAL-GLOBAL RELATIONS [6; p.310]. The invoked focus on how globalization HEGEMONY as a neo-liberal DISCOURSE both works and breaks down in practice [10] inspired development of strategies for debunking the inevitability ideology and opened ground for clearing the real POWER-GEOMETRIES [6, p. 311]. Following the above logic geographical context of the representations related to AMERICAN EMPIRE, PAX AMERICANA, the idea of the WEST, EUROCENTRISM, the idea of AFRICA, the idea of the MIDDLE EAST as well as the NORTH-SOUTH CONCEPT (another GEOGRAPHIC IMAGINARY in certain sense) interweave the need for re-reading of interpretations of CIVILIZATION, CORE-PERIPHERY MODEL, and WORLD-SYSTEM ANALYSIS in particular. In addition to the indexed by the DHG appeal to imaginative geography, the disciplinary nexus of globalization implicitly refers to economic, industrial and agricultural, population and labour, urban and rural, regional, contrapuntal and feminist geographies. Moreover, the context of the above consideration reinforces the role of human and physical the geographies and the formal theories of location and spatialization, in particular. Conclusions. Geographic arguments serve as an integral part of the logic of the ‘flat-world’ geographic imaginary of globalization debunking. Geographically sensitive interpretations clear the way for conceptualization of globalization, which shall benefit from further research of geography and its sub-fields contribution to the explanation of globalization. Presented above logical context and geographical nexus needs further reverse exploration of the geographical concepts and terms (over 30, the SPACE, the PLACE, the TERRITORY, etc. in particular) in the context of globalization discourse. Thus, a readable scholarly framework of globalization and geographical nexus requires further elaboration in order to serve comprehensive capacity to conceive the contemporary state of the world. Bibliography: Agnew, J.A. 2006: Globaliгation has a home address: the geopolitics of globaliгation. In D. Conаaв and N. Heвnen, eds, Globaliгation’s contradictions: geographies of discipline, destruction and transformation. New York Castells, M. 1996: The rise of the network society. Vol. 1 of The information age: economy, society and culture. Oxford. Castells, M. 1997: The power of identity. Vol. 2 of The information age: economy, society and culture. Oxford. Castells, M. 1998: End of millennium. Vol. 3 of The information age: economy, society and culture. Oxford. Cosgrove, D. 2001: Apollo’s eвe: a cartographic genealogв of the earth in the Western imagination. Baltimore, MD. Derec,G., Jonston R., Ceraldine, P., Watts, M.J., Whatmore,S. 2009 The Dictionarв of Human Geographв / edited by Derek Gregory . . . [et al.]. – 5th ed. Friedman, T.L. 2000 [1999]: The lexus and the olive tree: understanding globalization, New York. Friedman, T.L. 2005: The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century. New York. Gregory, D. 2004: The colonial present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq. Oxford. Hart, G. 2006: Denaturalizing dispossession: critical ethnography in the age of resurgent imperialism. Antipode 38 (5): 977-1004. Harvey, D. 1989: The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford. nd Harvey, D. 1999 [1982]: Limits to capital. 2 edn. London. Harvey, D. 2004: The new imperialism. Oxford. Harvey, D. 2005: A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford. Harvey, D. 2006: Spaces of global capitalism: a theory of uneven geographical development. New York. Held, D., McGrew,A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. 1999: Global Transformations: politics, economics and culture. Stanford, CA. Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. 1996: Globalization in question: the international economy and possibilities of governance. Cambridge. Marx K. and Engels F. 2002 [1848]: The communist manifesto, trans.S.Moore; ed.G.Stedman Jones. London. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. . Э С , Г Г , ( .Г ), , , . К : С К і . Ц , : К К Ш , К ь ., . 0503574441 , , Г є Г і і , , , і , , .К , ( . Г , 34, . ), ’ є є , , . і , К ь Н ь Т