Geopolitics and ‘Development’: An Introduction
Geopolitics and ‘Development’: An Introduction
复制标题
地缘政治与“发展”：简介
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Power
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Power
彼得·佩里（Peter Perry）在1987年和《政治地理学》（Political Geography）杂志成立几年后写道：“英美政治地理学提出并追求的是一种有限和贫乏的学科版本，在很大程度上忽视了人类五分之四的政治关切”。Eleanore Kofman在20世纪90年代中期重申了这一点，指出“政治地理写作的严重盎格鲁中心主义，更不用说欧洲中心主义了”。然而，这些局限性并不是政治地理学所独有的;“英美”人文地理学更广泛地定期受到非常类似的批评。其中一些干预措施所表达的担忧是，在整个学科中存在着占主导地位的“狭隘形式的理论化”，这些理论化集中在特定的知识传统和背景上，导致“地理学的知识视野仅限于世界上最富有国家的关注和观点”。这种“西方的观点”显然形成了广泛的政治地理学理论，使得“狭隘的知识”继续“以普遍的形式创造”。这种狭隘性被认为是基于“美国-英国配置”或“欧美轴心”，这种配置或“欧美轴心”已经以一种可能缩小政治地理思想基础并掩盖“其主张和优势的位置基础”的方式变得突出。
Writing in 1987 and a few years after the establishment of the journal Political Geography, Peter Perry noted that “Anglo-American political geography poses and pursues a limited and impoverished version of the discipline, largely ignoring the political concerns of four fifths of humankind”. Eleanore Kofman reiterated this in the mid-1990s, noting “the heavily Anglocentric, let alone Eurocentric, bias of political geography writing”. These limitations are not unique to Political Geography however; ‘AngloAmerican’ human geography more widely has periodically been subject to a very similar critique. The concern articulated in some of these interventions is that there are dominant “parochial forms of theorising” in the discipline as a whole centred upon particular intellectual traditions and contexts leading to “a geography whose intellectual vision is limited to the concerns and perspectives of the richest countries in the world”. This “view from the West” has clearly shaped a wide range of theorisations in political geography such that “parochial knowledge” has continued to be “created in universal form”. This parochiality has been seen as based upon “a US-UK configuration” or “Euro-American axis” that has come to prominence in a way that potentially narrows the base of political geographical thought and obscures “the situated basis of its claims and vantage-point”.