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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3507774.pdf

The New York Review of Books

Culture and Imperialism

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...

The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory

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.

http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/3437/1/75.pdf

Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security

© 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’

/pdf/cultural-geography-the-busyness-of-being-more-than-5023st7gxo.pdf

Cultural geography: the busyness of being 'more-than-representational'

The critical reading/writing of geopolitics: re-reading/writing Wittfogel, Bowman and Lacoste

Placing blame: Making sense of Beslan

The production of a “Gulf Crisis” out of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, and the subsequent inscription and mediation of the conflict, created a spatiality that facilitated the pulverization of peoples and places in Iraq and Kuwait in early 1991. This paper attempts to open up this spatiality to empirical investigation and theoretical reflection. It addresses four issues: firstly, how the crisis came to be narrated as the “Gulf Crisis,” secondly, the official geographing of the crisis with particular sets of meanings and imaginary geographies by the Bush administration, thirdly, the role speed played in the crisis, and finally, the electronic, televisual spatiality of the conflict. How one describes the spatiality of the Gulf conflict poses a difficult theoretical question. One possibility is to geographicalize Levinas and Bauman's arguments concerning “the effacement of the face.” However, narratives of “the effacement of place” ultimately rest on an innocenting of place.

The effacement of place? us foreign policy and the spatiality of the gulf crisis

The Bush administration and the ‘end’ of the cold war: a critical geopolitics of U.S. foreign policy in 1989

The authors examine some of the classic ideas of geopolitical analysis using a recent survey of Russian public opinion. Problematizing prevailing assumptions and binaries in geopolitical discourse, they pose a series of questions that provide measures of Russia's geopolitical orientations. Do more Russians think of their country as European or Eurasianist? If the United States is judged the most important state for Russian foreign policy, what country do most respondents view as the most appropriate model for Russia? Logit modeling of the ranking of state importance and preferences of countries as models for Russia show consistent and clear relationships with cleavages in Russian society along socio-demographic and ideological lines. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: F01, F02, Z13. 5 figures, 2 tables, 44 references.

Gearóid Ó Tuathail

Papers

The critical reading/writing of geopolitics: re-reading/writing Wittfogel, Bowman and Lacoste

Placing blame: Making sense of Beslan

The effacement of place? us foreign policy and the spatiality of the gulf crisis

The Bush administration and the ‘end’ of the cold war: a critical geopolitics of U.S. foreign policy in 1989

The Geopolitical Orientations of Ordinary Russians: A Public Opinion Analysis