Geopolitical Discourse: The Soviet Union as other
Geopolitical Discourse: The Soviet Union as other
复制标题
地缘政治话语：苏联与其他国家
DOI：
10.1177/030437548801300401
复制
发表时间：
1988
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Simon Dalby
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Simon Dalby
抽象的离子。”这种形而上学建构的首要地位对于国家空间的建构至关重要。它们被理解为空间实体，而它们所组成的社会则包含在它们的边界之内。几何实体相对于该地区真实社会实践的这种特权是基于文化的空间化，2g以绝对空间概念为前提。正如 Shapiro3’ 提醒我们的那样， 在地图上将国家视为具有精确界定边界的几何实体，使国家实体化，并否认了大部分社会现实。这种具体化的话语实践对于地缘政治的运作至关重要。但这些具体化是历史的产物，而不是解释它们的绝对空间的普遍结构。政治空间的划分仍然是国际安排辩论的基础，它是核战略文献的基础，它在 地缘政治。这是一种明显具有霸权性的政治事务概念化。它被认为是不可避免的，被认为是常识，并被自然化，因为它使一种短暂的政治安排，即现代性的政治安排永恒。 31自第二次世界大战以来，资本主义国家的国家职能迅速增长——它们在国家和国际经济管理中的作用不断增强，在提供“福利国家”方面的作用，以及经济增长。 处于部分军事动员永久状态的“安全国家”，增加了对这些国家职能进行意识形态论证的需要。这些新的政治安排伴随着技术专业知识的专门话语作用的扩大。这些话语通过将政治问题重新表述为技术问题来减少政治讨论的作用，而技术问题可以通过使用其专门程序找到“正确”或“最佳”答案。他们行动 通过将政治简化为根据这些话语中所包含的社会状况的定义而制定的管理计划来维持霸权。他们通过援引422《地缘政治话语：苏联作为其他国家》中的技术专业知识作为政治决策的场所，将问题去政治化，在此过程中取代了明确的政治讨论，代之以专家话语。核技术及其政治安排为进程增添了重要的维度 由此产生了维持西方资本主义政治安排的共识。社会彻底毁灭的威胁使得这些武器的存在变得特别必要，而伴随其部署的军事化社会和文化进程同时缩小了民主决策的范围？在西方，特别是在美国，武器及其制度在以下方面是合理的： 对以苏联为代表的外部敌人的无所不在的恐惧34。正如许多作家所明确指出的那样，当代对军事化的众多批评反复遇到了在某些情况下可以说的话的局限性，这一过程揭示了核国家的霸权话语结构。35为了回应和平运动的批评，“安全知识分子”^^除其他外，使用了 区分合法“言论自由”和非法保护的意识形态手段。本文更重要的是利用对苏联作为扩张主义他者的广泛而有力的理解，不仅需要威慑和平运动，而且还需要边缘化许多与苏联缓和和军备控制的倡导者。持不同政见者被污蔑为向外部敌人提供支持和援助。另一个提供了轴 可接受和不可接受的政治活动和身份被构建。这些身份是通过“战略”、“苏联学”、“现实主义”和“地缘政治”等“安全话语”构建的，这些话语被用来描述、解释和合法化“遏制”、“威慑”和维护“国家安全”的学说。现实主义主导了战后国际关系的讨论，而从权力角度理解的关键利益概念在战后政治话语中很重要。利益与安全密切相关，其理解是防止潜在对手入侵自己的（领土上理解的）空间，而这反过来又与实体保护和政治结盟有关，就美国而言，是全球I’PI-I。 。 -r :-+--mm+:-mml m n l : + : , m m n 。 。 n 6 我。 s : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ h l e 1 m h n F 422 地缘政治话语：苏联作为其他政治决策的场所，在此过程中取代了明确的政治讨论并用专家话语取代。核技术及其政治安排为各方达成共识的进程增添了一个重要层面。 维护西方资本主义的政治安排。社会彻底毁灭的威胁使得这些武器的存在变得特别必要，而伴随其部署的军事化社会和文化进程同时缩小了民主决策的范围？在西方，特别是在美国，武器及其制度在 # 方面是合理的。
ion of abstractions.” The primacy of this metaphysical construction is crucial to the construction of the space of states. They are understood as spatial entitiqs, and the societies of which they are composed are contained within their boundaries. This privileging of the geometric entity over the real societal practices of the region is based on the spatialization of culture,2g premised on the conception of absolute space. As Shapiro3’ reminds us, the cartographical designation of states as geometric entities with precisely definable boundaries hypostatizes states and denies large parts of social reality. This discursive practice of reification is crucial to the operation of geopolitics. But these reifications are historical products, not the universal structures of absolute space in which they are construed. The division of political space remains the basis of the debates on international arrangements, it underlies the literature of nuclear strategy, it is explicit in geopolitics. It is a conceptualization ofpolitical affairs that is clearly hegemonic. I t is accepted as inevitable, assumed to be commonsense, and naturalized in that it renders eternal a transitory political arrangement, that of modernity.31 The rapid growth of state functions in capitalist states since the Second World War-their increased role in national and international economic management, their role in the provision of “the welfare state,” as well as the growth of the “security state” in a perpetual condition of partial military mobilization-has expanded the need for ideological justifications of the functions of these states. These new political arrangements have been accompanied by an expansion of the role of specialized discourses of technical expertise, These discourses act to reduce the role of political discussion by recasting political issues in terms of technical problems to which they can, by using their specialized procedures, find “correct” or “optimal” answers. They act to maintain hegemony by reducing politics to a matter of administrating programs devised on the basis of the definition of social situations contained in these discourses. They depoliticize issues by invoking technical expertise in 422 Geopolitical Discourse: The Soviet Union As Other the place of political decision-making, in the process displacing explicit political discussion and replacing it with expert discourse. Nuclear technologies and their political arrangements have added an important dimension to processes whereby consent is generated for the maintenance of the political arrangements of Western capitalism. The threat of complete societal annihilation renders the legitimation of the existence of these weapons particularly necessary, while the social and cultural processes of militarization3’ that accompany their de loyment simultaneously reduce the scope for democratic decision-making? In the West, and the United States in particular, the weapons and their institutions are justified in terms of the omnipresent fear of the external enemy, present in the form of the Soviet Union.34 . ,US security discourse As has been made clear by a number of writers, the numerous contemporary critiques of militarization repeatedly run into the limitations of what can be said in certain circumstances, a process revealing the hegemonic discursive structures of the nuclear state.35 In response to peace movement critiques, “security intellectual^"^^ use, among others, the ideological device of distinguishing between legitimate “free speech” and illegitimate prote~t .~’ More important for this paper is the use of the widespread and powerful understanding of the Soviet Union as an expansionist Other that requires deterring, to marginalize not only peace movements, but many advocates of detente and arms control with the Soviet Union. Dissenters are vilified as giving support and assistance to the external enemy. The Other provides the axis on which acceptable and unacceptable political activities and identities are constructed. These identities are constructed through the “security discourses” of “strategy,” “sovietology,” “realism” and “geopolitics” which were mobilized to describe, explain and legitimate the doctrines of “containment,” “deterrence” and the prdvision of “national security.” Realism dominated discussions of international relations in the postwar period, and the key concept of interest understood in terms of power is important in the postwar political discourse. Interests are intimately related to security, understood in the sense of preventing the potential adversary from invading one’s (territorially understood) space, which in turn relates to physical protection and political alignments at, in the US case, the global I ‘PI-I . . -r :-+--mm+:-mml m n l : + : , m m n . . n 6 I . s : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ h l e 1 m h n F 422 Geopolitical Discourse: The Soviet Union As Other the place of political decision-making, in the process displacing explicit political discussion and replacing it with expert discourse. Nuclear technologies and their political arrangements have added an important dimension to processes whereby consent is generated for the maintenance of the political arrangements of Western capitalism. The threat of complete societal annihilation renders the legitimation of the existence of these weapons particularly necessary, while the social and cultural processes of militarization3’ that accompany their de loyment simultaneously reduce the scope for democratic decision-making? In the West, and the United States in particular, the weapons and their institutions are justified in terms of #