Political Geography 18 (1999) 895–900

www.elsevier.com/locate/polgeo

Where should we begin? Political geography

and international relations
Yosef Lapid
Department of Political Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA

Abstract

Doing interdisciplinary work well requires an added form of knowledge. (Thompson Klein,
1996: 224)

At a time when spatial metaphors are “becoming just as paradigmatic as was the use of
mechanistic and biological metaphors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries” (Bruce,
1993), it is hardly surprising that geographers have launched an internal debate on the meaning
and ramifications of this massive “rediscovery” of geography (Abler, 1999). More surprising,
and perhaps also more promising, is the considerable interest generated by this debate in
scholarly audiences outside the spatial disciplines. Following a sustained lack of attention to
their geographies, the political fields (international relations, in particular), for instance, seem
seriously motivated to rethink some of their problematic spatial and territorial premises. The
concurrence of a greater confidence among geographers in their ability and mandate “to help
others see the geography in their own topics” (Gould, 1997) with a clearer realization by
“others” (in this case, political scientists) that they can use all the help they can get in this
matter, should open the door for new fertile dialogues and collaborations between the spatial
and the political disciplines. However, a record of missed opportunities and mismanaged prior
encounters cautions against overly optimistic expectations regarding the anticipated payoffs
of this long-overdue scholarly re-engagement. Incidental or transient rediscoveries are easy;
the true challenge is, of course, to facilitate a sustained dialogue with long-standing beneficial
effects for both scholarship and society.
Elazar’s suggestive essay derives its pertinence from this general context and offers a timely
opportunity to carry such concerns and activities further down the road. In the following, I
will address his contention that “a discussion of the relationship of political science and geogra-
phy should begin with consideration of location” from the standpoint of International Relations
(IR). Within this limited focus, I will acknowledge some merits of this thesis, yet offer an
alternative starting point for new interdisciplinary ventures. My argument builds on Julie

E-mail address: ylapid@nmsu.edu (Y. Lapid)

0962-6298/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 2 - 6 2 9 8 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 1 - 4
896 Y. Lapid / Political Geography 18 (1999) 895–900

Thompson Klein’s insistence that effective interdisciplinary work “requires an added form of
knowledge”. To that extent, dialogue-oriented IR and geography scholars may want to preface
their foregrounding of specific concepts, theories and/or methods (such as location) with some
shared reflections on communicative competencies and skills needed to engage in productive
disciplinary crossings at the end of this century. Such is the spirit of the alternative point of
departure sketched in the second part of this short response.  1999 Published by Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Political geography; International relations; Interdisciplinary dialogue; Location

Starting with location?

Professor Elazar’s contribution cannot be dismissed as part of a faddish “rediscov-

ery of geography” trend. His interest in spatial matters is long-standing, as evidenced
by the fact that some of his most important work is solidly anchored in both geogra-
phy and political science. Furthermore, his multi-dimensional (i.e., spatial, temporal,
cultural, and cybernetic) reworking of the concept of location qualifies as an original,
if skeletal, contribution to a difficult challenge long-faced by geographers, namely
the effort to break the “stranglehold of simple location” (Casey, 1997). Nor is Elazar
alone in affirming the promise of location as a conceptual hub for revitalized cross-
disciplinary collaborations involving spatial and other scholarly fields. An expanding
interest in “how location affects the way people live” arguably underscores much
of the current rediscovery of geography, in general (Cohen, 1998). This is perhaps
the reason why Elazar’s key contention regarding location has been echoed lately
all across the human and the social sciences. MIT professor Paul Krugman, for
instance, has noted recently that “space has finally made it into the economic main-
stream” via the renewed interest in the location of economic activity (Krugman,
1998). A similar picture is obtained in International Relations, where location has
been playing an important, though by no means exclusive, role in the currently
expanding effort to “bring geography back in” again.1 And spatial feminists such as
Adrienne Rich and Elspeth Probyn have long advocated the use of location as a core
organizing concept or metaphor in different fields and disciplines. This convergence
on location by both critical and mainstream scholars suggests, at minimum, that
Elazar’s thesis deserves a serious and sympathetic hearing.
Having acknowledged these merits, however, one must immediately add that Elaz-
ar’s effort to privilege location as the departure point for a productive
geography/political science re-engagement is not convincing. Location (be it simple
or multi-dimensional) may be important, but it is not everything. One is, in fact,
hard pressed to identify a truly compelling reason to reorient the rich multitude of
potential spatial/political joint ventures to any single concept. Be that as it may,

1
See, for instance, recent efforts to pinpoint shared characteristics of medieval and postmodern polit-
ical orders by reference to the role of physical location in respective political structures (Kobrin, 1998).
For earlier efforts to ponder location in IR see Starr (1991).
 Y. Lapid / Political Geography 18 (1999) 895–900 897

relevant discussions between the spatial and political disciplines have progressed
well beyond this point already. It is therefore impossible to heed Elazar’s suggestion
without thereby risking unprecedented opportunities for far greater achievements.
The IR experience strongly supports this conclusion. From among all the political
fields and sub-fields, International Relations has surfaced recently as perhaps the
most interested in reconsidering its spatial and territorial premises. Gone are the days
when serious interest in territoriality was limited to isolated scholars such as John
Herz, Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie. To the contrary, contemporary IR
theory is blessed with a rapidly multiplying list of rediscovered geographies (Shapiro,
1994; Scholte, 1996; Ross, 1999). Although feminist, postmodernist and critical (i.e.,
“dissident”) scholars have been at the forefront of this dramatic transformation, this
“spatial turn” has now expanded deep into more traditional or mainstream disciplin-
ary quarters (Albert, Jacobson, & Lapid, forthcoming). Striking in this context is not
only the frequent use of spatial concepts and metaphors, but also the intimate famili-
arity of young IR scholars with the work of political geographers such as Henri
Lefebvre, John Agnew, Peter Taylor, and others. For our present purposes, suffice
is to note, however, that the bulk of this literature makes no direct reference to
location, without thereby losing any of its vibrant qualities. Other spatial concepts
and metaphors have competed successfully for IR attention and proved equal to the
task. In short, if there are still substantial obstacles threatening a successful
IR/Political Geography dialogue — as is certainly the case — the absence of special
attention to the factor of location does not seem to figure prominently on that list.

Locating another starting point

If not location then what? Where should we start our quest for a sustained and
productive dialogue? While many possibilities present themselves, I propose that
interested IR scholars and political geographers turn their attention to the “added
form of knowledge” (mentioned in the epitaph of this short response). To the extent
that this suggestion involves some form of metatheorizing, it will not be popular with
those who would rather “go on with the job” and not engage in endless “dialogues on
dialogues”. However, as lucidly pointed out by Julie Thompson Klein, communicat-
ive competence and inter-disciplinary skills do not come naturally and the transfer
of meaning across disciplinary lines cannot be taken for granted. (Thompson Klein,
1996: 220)). These are difficult and fragile achievements that must be reflexively
monitored and carefully cultivated.
In the following, I will limit myself to three types of misunderstanding that can
potentially threaten the constitution of a productive dialogue at the scholarly intersec-
tion under consideration. Such misunderstandings, I argue, can be anticipated and
removed by moderate investments in the “added form of knowledge” advocated by
Julie Thompson Klein. To begin with, political geographers and IR specialists bent
on collaboration should clarify their respective stands on issues of disciplinarity. Are
the envisioned dialogues or collaborations guided by multi- and inter-disciplinary
perspectives or by trans-, post-, non-, or counter-disciplinary destinations? (Slater,
898 Y. Lapid / Political Geography 18 (1999) 895–900

1997). To the extent that much of the impetus for collaboration between Geography
and International Relations originates from respective critical or dissident quarters,
it is hardly surprising that symptoms of a slippery slope syndrome (from inter- to
non- or even counter-disciplinarity) have been sporadically evident (Doty, 1997),
similarly, Slater (1997) suggests that in “contemporary development theory, the
counter-disciplinary trend has become more pronounced”. As a result, “interdisciplin-
arity” has been “often used as a rhetorical weapon against the disciplines instead of
a productive challenge to build new relations and to challenge our own research
practices” (McNeil, 1998). Now, in addition to being nearly impossible to realize,
anti-disciplinarity also ignores the following fundamental insight: “All Dialogue
involves a dynamic tension between (or among) the selves engaged in it. Without
this tension, there could be no Dialogue because the opposition of distinct selves
provides the raw material that keeps the flame of Dialogue going. Were the selves
to be totally consumed in the interaction, Dialogue would cease to exist, thereby
replaced by a state of homogeneous unity” (Sachs, 1998: 112).
Mattei Dogan’s recent work on processes of cross-fertilization through “hybridiz-
ation” (i.e. dynamic recombinations of disciplinary segments, rather than of entire
disciplines) qualifies perhaps as an “added form of knowledge” that can help remove
some of this disciplinary/interdisciplinary/counterdisciplinary confusion (Dogan,
1997). To the extent that a strategic vision is needed to lend direction and coherence
to an expanding IR/Political Geography dialogue, “hybridization” may be better than
“disciplinarity” and its various mutations. For in as far as interdisciplinarity requires
the mastery of two or more whole disciplines, it can no longer be considered a
feasible goal. Hybridization, on the other hand, is not an “interdisciplinary” endeavor,
and ironically this may be the main reason for its great intuitive appeal.2
A second set of serious misunderstandings may originate from the fact that this
is not the first sustained encounter between Political Geography and International
Relations. The legacy of the previous encounter was an IR geopolitical tradition
subscribing to spatialized forms of theorizing. Unfortunately, IR’s geopolitical school
has been marginalized not only by its association with a term used (and abused) by
the Nazi regime, but also by its failure to seriously reflect upon its own spatial
assumptions (Gearoid, 1996: 53). Given that this previous encounter has produced
such dubious results, skeptics (inside and outside International Relations and Political
Geography) will wonder if there are reasons to believe that things will be substan-
tively different this time around? (Murphy, 1997: 291). In such situations, appropriate
rhetorical strategies need to be devised in order to carve out a new, and more
receptive, space for interdisciplinary collaboration (Thompson Klein, 1996: 220). A
promising strategy here could emphasize the evolving (as opposed to static) nature
of scholarly disciplines and hence the fundamental uniqueness of all scholarly
encounters. For in as far as neither Political Geography nor International Relations
are the same, the growth potential of a new meeting point may not be accurately

2
For problems associated with disciplinarity and hybridization from the standpoint of geography, see
Johnston, 1998.
 Y. Lapid / Political Geography 18 (1999) 895–900 899

prefigured in previous encounters. Such is certainly the case with Political Geography
and International Relations, as they have been both largely reconstructed by changing
historical circumstances and scholarly practices.
Finally, although full-blown Khunian incommensurabilities are not commonly
found in the social sciences, the reliable transfer of meaning across inter — and
nowadays even intra — disciplinary lines poses grave, yet rarely addressed, prob-
lems. John Borneman, for instance, convincingly demonstrates how the relentless
efforts of young American anthropologists to come up with ever more sophisticated
representations of culture has resulted ultimately in a “void into which other disci-
plines have stepped by simply appropriating...older versions of anthropological rep-
resentation” (Borneman, 1998: 8). A similar danger lurks in current wholesale meta-
phorization of spatial terms (i.e., spaces, borders, territories and so on) both inside
and outside the spatial disciplines. That geographers now “operate in (and on)
‘diffferent spaces’” may reflect new theoretical vibrancy in the spatial disciplines
(Soja, 1999). However, as aptly pointed out by Ien Ang, such processes may uninten-
tionally foreclose rather the stimulate productive intra- and inter-disciplinary com-
munications (Ang: 24).
Much more can be said on issue of communicative competence and interdisciplin-
ary skills. However, my goal in this short response was merely to suggest that
Thompson Klein’s added form of knowledge may constitute a suitable starting point
for the next round in the IR/Political Geography dialogue.

References

Albert, M., Jacobson, D., Lapid, Y. (Eds.), forthcoming. Identities, borders, orders: New directions in IR
theory. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Ang, I., 1998. Doing cultural studies at the crossroads. European Journal of Cultural Studies 1 (1), 13–31.
Abler, R., 1999. Geography then and now. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 (1),
144–145.
Borneman, J., 1998. Subversions of international order. Albany, State University of New York.
Bruce, D., 1993. Remapping knowledge: X marks the spot, but on which map. SubStance 71, 54.
Casey, E.S., 1997. Smooth spaces and rough-edged places: The hidden history of place. The Review of
Metaphysics 51, 289.
Cohen, P., 1998. Geography redux: Where you live is what you are. New York Time B, 7.3.
Dogan, M., 1997. The new social sciences: Cracks in the disciplinary walls. International Journal of Social
Science 153, 429–443.
Doty, R., 1997. International relations: Challenging boundaries, global flows, territorial identities. The
American Political Science Review June, 510.
Gearoid, O.T., 1996. Critical geopolitics. Routledge, London.
Gould, P., 1997. The structure of space(s). Geografiska Annaler 79B, 138.
Johnston, R.J., 1998. Fragmentation around a defended core: The territoriality of geography. The Geo-
graphical Journal 164 (2), 139–147.
Kobrin, S., 1998. Back to the future: Neomedievalism and the postmodern digital world economy. Journal
of International Affairs 51 (2), 375.
Krugman, P., 1998. Space: The final frontier. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (2), 164.
McNeil, M., 1998. Decentering or re-focusing cultural studies. Cultural Studies 1 (1), 59.
Murphy, D.T., 1997. The heroic earth: Geopolitical thought in Weimar Germany, 1918–1933. Kent State
University Press, Kent, Ohio.
900 Y. Lapid / Political Geography 18 (1999) 895–900

Ross, R., 1999. The geography of the peace. International Security 23 (4), 81–118.
Sachs, M., 1998. Dialogues on Modern Physics. World Scientific, River Edge, New Jersey.
Scholte, J., 1996. The geography of collective identities in a globalizing world. Review of International
Political Economy 3 (4), 565–607.
Shapiro, M., 1994. Moral geographies and the ethics of post-sovereignty. Public Culture 6, 479–502.
Slater, D., 1997. Geopolitical imaginations across the north-south divide: Issues of difference, develop-
ment and power. Political Geography 6 (8), 632.
Soja, E., 1999. In different spaces: The cultural turn in urban and regional political economy. European
Planning Studies 7 (1), 65.
Starr, H., 1991. Joining political and geographic perspectives: Geopolitics and international relations.
International Interactions 17 (1), 1–19.
Thompson Klein, J., 1996. Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Uni-
versity Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.