scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Gearóid Ó Tuathail

Bio: Gearóid Ó Tuathail is an academic researcher from Virginia Tech. The author has contributed to research in topics: Geopolitics & Critical geopolitics. The author has an hindex of 33, co-authored 62 publications receiving 4329 citations. Previous affiliations of Gearóid Ó Tuathail include Syracuse University & University of Liverpool.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Critical Geopolitics as mentioned in this paper presents a brilliant and radical analysis of the ideas which have driven nations to attempt to remap the globe in their own image, ranging across Britsh colonialism to Nazi geopolitics, from America's ambitions to the bloodshed of Bosnia and Ireland.
Abstract: Critical Geopolitics presents a brilliant and radical analysis of the ideas which have driven nations to attempt to remap the globe in their own image. The essays - ranging across Britsh colonialism to Nazi geopolitics, from America's ambitions to the bloodshed of Bosnia and Ireland - unearth a new political history of the struggle for space and power in the West, and revise the geographies of global politics at the end of the twentieth century.

688 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue for the re-conceptualization of geo-politics using the concept of discourse and argue that the irony of such practical geo-political representations of place is that they necessitate the abrogation of genuine geographical knowledge about the diversity and complexity of places as social entities.

513 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

329 citations

BookDOI
01 Aug 2003
TL;DR: The Geopolitics Reader as discussed by the authors is an interdisciplinary sourcebook of the most important political, geographical, historical, and sociological readings of geopolitics in the late twentieth century.
Abstract: The Geopolitics Reader offers an interdisciplinary sourcebook of the most important political, geographical, historical and sociological readings of geopolitics in the late twentieth century. The Reader is divided into five parts which draw on the most illuminating examples of imperial, Cold War, contemporary geopolitics, new environmental themes and multiple resistances to the practices of geopolitics. The editors provide comprehensive introductions and critical comment at the beginning of each part and visual 'geopolitical texts' in the form of political cartoons are integrated throughout. Encouraging exploration of divergent viewpoints of global conflict and change this invaluable compendium includes readings by Martin Luther King, Vaclav Havel and George Bush.

187 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: The New York Review ofBooks as mentioned in this paper is now over twenty years old and it has attracted controversy since its inception, but it is the controversies that attract the interest of the reader and to which the history, especially an admittedly impressionistic survey, must give some attention.
Abstract: It comes as something ofa surprise to reflect that the New York Review ofBooks is now over twenty years old. Even people of my generation (that is, old enough to remember the revolutionary 196os but not young enough to have taken a very exciting part in them) think of the paper as eternally youthful. In fact, it has gone through years of relatively quiet life, yet, as always in a competitive journalistic market, it is the controversies that attract the interest of the reader and to which the history (especially an admittedly impressionistic survey that tries to include something of the intellectual context in which a journal has operated) must give some attention. Not all the attacks which the New York Review has attracted, both early in its career and more recently, are worth more than a brief summary. What do we now make, for example, of Richard Kostelanetz's forthright accusation that 'The New York Review was from its origins destined to publicize Random House's (and especially [Jason] Epstein's) books and writers'?1 Well, simply that, even if the statistics bear out the charge (and Kostelanetz provides some suggestive evidence to support it, at least with respect to some early issues), there is nothing surprising in a market economy about a publisher trying to push his books through the pages of a journal edited by his friends. True, the New York Review has not had room to review more than around fifteen books in each issue and there could be a bias in the selection of

2,430 citations

01 Jan 1995

1,882 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
John Agnew1
TL;DR: Even when political rule is territorial, territoriality does not necessarily entail the practices of total mutual exclusion which dominant understandings of the modern territorial state attribute to it as discussed by the authors, however, when the territoriality of the state is debated by international relations theorists, the discussion is overwhelmingly in terms of the persistence or obsolescence of the territorial state as an unchanging entity rather than in the terms of its significance and meaning in different historical-geographical circumstances.
Abstract: Even when political rule is territorial, territoriality does not necessarily entail the practices of total mutual exclusion which dominant understandings of the modern territorial state attribute to it. However, when the territoriality of the state is debated by international relations theorists the discussion is overwhelmingly in terms of the persistence or obsolescence of the territorial state as an unchanging entity rather than in terms of its significance and meaning in different historical‐geographical circumstances. Contemporary events call this approach into question. The end of the Cold War, the increased velocity and volatility of the world economy, and the emergence of political movements outside the framework of territorial states, suggest the need to consider the territoriality of states in historical context. Conventional thinking relies on three geographical assumptions ‐ states as fixed units of sovereign space, the domestic/foreign polarity, and states as ‘containers’ of societies...

1,754 citations

Book
01 Jan 2003
TL;DR: In this article, the authors develop a regional approach to global security and present scenarios for the RSCs of the Americas, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively.
Abstract: Part I. Introduction: Developing a Regional Approach to Global Security: 1. Theories and histories about the structure of contemporary international security 2. Levels: distinguishing the regional from the global 3. Security complexes: a theory of regional security Part II. Asia: 4. South Asia: inching towards internal and external transformation 5. Northeast and southeast Asian security complexes during the Cold War 6. The 1990s and beyond: an emergent east Asian complex Conclusion Part III. The Middle East and Africa: Introduction 7. The Middle East: a perennial conflict formation 8. Sub-saharan Africa: security dynamics in a setting of weak and failed states Conclusions Part IV. The Americas: 9. North America: the sole superpower and its surroundings 10. South America: an under-conflictual anomaly? Conclusion: scenarios for the RSCs of the Americas Part V. The Europes: Introduction: 11. EU-Europe: the European Union and its 'near abroad' 12. The Balkans and Turkey 13. The post-Soviet space: a regional security complex around Russia Conclusion: scenarios for the European supercomplex Part VI. Conclusions: 14. Regions and powers: summing up and looking ahead 15. Reflections on conceptualising international security.

1,537 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Arnab et al. as mentioned in this paper describe non-representational theory as an umbrella term for diverse work that seeks better to cope with our self-evidently more-than-human, morethan-textual, multisensual worlds.
Abstract: © 2005 Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd 10.1191/0309132505ph531pr I Parameters, definitions and themes This is the first of three reports I will write covering an emergent area of research in cultural geography and its cognate fields. During recent years, ‘non-representational theory’ has become as an umbrella term for diverse work that seeks better to cope with our self-evidently more-than-human, more-than-textual, multisensual worlds. In as much as nonrepresentational work allows it, these reports will sketch out common themes of interest, and assess impacts, critics and potentials, variously conceptual, methodological and empirical. Of late, non-representational theorists have asked difficult and provocative questions of cultural geographers, and many others in the discipline, about what is intended by the conduct of research (Thrift and Dewsbury, 2000). What has been identified as deadening effect – the tendency for cultural analyses to cleave towards a conservative, categorical politics of identity and textual meaning – can, it is contended, be overcome by allowing in much more of the excessive and transient aspects of living. Given the scope and force of the original non-representational arguments, it is unsurprising that this theory has been subject to fulsome response. In fact, non-representational theory has become a particularly effective lightning-rod for disciplinary self-critique. Commentaries have emerged from within cultural, feminist and Marxian traditions and the more recent coalition of critical geography. Notably, and anecdotally, some of the most colourful observations have been saved for bi-partisan conversation in the conference or common room. It is important (not to say appropriate) that the nature of the dialogue – variously confrontational, tribal, dogmatic, peevish and full-bodied – goes on record early. Published versions have been concerned predominantly with the theoretical conditions for disciplinary succession or progression that the term ‘non-representational’ would seem to imply and how, in relation, the concept of performance should be understood by geographers. These articles are variously structured as manifesto, critical review, restated challenge, revanchist programme and proposed reconciliation (Thrift, 1996; 1997; 2000; Nelson, 1999; Thrift and Dewsbury, 2000; Nash, 2000; Harrison, 2000; Gregson and Rose, 2000; Crouch, 2001; Dewsbury et al., 2002; Whatmore, 2002; Cresswell, 2002; Smith, 2003; Jacobs and Nash, 2003; Latham, 2003a; Castree and MacMillan, 2004).1 In this report, I would like to treat the flourishing theoretical debate as a significant Cultural geography: the busyness of being ‘more-than-representational’

1,026 citations