Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) [Paperback]

The author clearly knows his subject and provides plenty of interesting details on geopolitical history and the current geopolitical situation, but this book lacks a systematic introductory overview of the topic, which is what one would expect from the subtitle "a very short introduction." In other words, the author has provided an entertaining guided tour of the trees, but has seemingly altogether forgotten to give an overall sense of the forest. (By the way, this seems to be a growing problem with the VSI series in general. The publisher and editors appear to be asleep at the wheel, or maybe just in the mode of churning these little books out for a quick profit, now that the brand is established.)

Readers already somewhat versed in geopolitics might find this book to be an easy and stimulating read, but I doubt that most other readers will gain much from the book.

I got this book hoping it would provide a lucid and succinct introduction to an area which I am interested in but know little about as a discipline or theory - much as I had found in others in the series. Unfortunately this book doesn't seem to actually have been written as such an introductory piece, but seems rather to be a group of essays around a common theme, that were then vaguely stringed together.

Beginning with an introduction around an apparently "convoluted" history of the term... it was associated with colonialism and racism in general and Nazism in particular - that's about it. He then takes a glance at how it has since generally been vaguely appropriated as a short-hand, or the preserve of right-wing realists usually bent on cynical justifications of national agendas. The author criticises these groups for not being interested in the chequered history of 'geopolitics' as a term, and seems to think that this history is of great importance. However, is prattling on about how it used to be a bad term really useful? Especially when it really just comes down to "some Geopolitical theories are/were tainted with Social Darwinian views".

More recently, we are told there is also a minority of post-modernists who are more concerned with the discourses of culture (popular geopolitics - read cultural studies applied to international relations), identity politics (with particular regard to territorial boundaries), as well as critiquing Us/Them and over-simplifications in producing generalised templates of the world (e.g. 'Axis of Evil', but also 'Third World'). Tediously, and somewhat inevitably, it is claimed that these post-modernists are often 'attempting to liberate populations from oppressive geopolitical structures' (p.51) ... I'm sure that the lifting of this burden is seen as a great boon by those in the Third World...

It goes on, but it's not so much about Geopolitical theories as it is an opinion piece. It blurs critique of US foreign policy, with a cursory glance at the history of the 20th century and an exploration of some contemporary themes in the academic world such as Globalisation. There's even an exhortation to read the VSI on that very subject, which felt an awful lot like product placement. In a similar vein, the author also has the irritating habit of starting sentences with "as so-and-so opines" and the like, which are completely irrelevant and don't even come with citations (so they're not there for you to chase up that's for sure, more like obsequious nods to authority). It also makes obligatory post-modern references to "time/space" and how it has "contracted", which sounds grand but really just means our sense of distance has got smaller owing to developments in communication technology. Although I must say to his credit the obscurantism and abuse of language now so typical of academia isn't really evident outside these examples. As another poster said, it's more like a Guardian piece...

On the subject of its quality, I'm really very surprised this passed muster. It's certainly marred my otherwise good experience of the series, for example although I didn't think the one I read on Rousseau was fantastic either, at least it was coherent and served a purpose as an *introduction*. I was pretty much appalled by the error on page 128 which shows two maps supposedly representing Europe in 1914 and 1919. The errors are numerous, but particularly glaring, even from a quick glance, is the German-Polish border in each... Ironically this picture comes immediately after mentioning how American scholars had meticulously studied and gathered information on how to deal with that very border at the Paris Peace Conference. What were the QAs doing? What were the publisher and author doing? These maps can't even be explained as being "the wrong ones", they represent no time in history at all. It's as if they got half-way and just couldn't be arsed.

I was also frustrated that there was no attempt whatsoever to explain the concept of the supposedly pivotal "Heartland", or why anyone would ever think the region crucial to the past and future fates of the Great Powers, and echo other criticisms raised by the reviews on this site. I would agree that the bit about polar projections was interesting, but could have been dealt with in a lot less space.

It's not that there aren't interesting bits, it's just that it's not what was advertised. I'm not sure I wanted a book that comprised very brief summary of the development of the discipline (focused on its use as a *term*), coupled with a vague critique of US foreign policy since 1945, with some random contextual information thrown in about the formation and development of the Cold War order. The most useful thing about it really were the indirect references and insights into how postmodernism has affected the area - but even that is an all-too familiar story. I'd steer clear, and I may even complain to the OUP and ask for a refund.

This is such a rich subject - with a few thousand years of history to animate its examples and counter-examples, but unfortunately the author really can't stop himself from writing a long contemporary Guardian-type op-ed that reflects standard British academic bias about America, American politics, American policy, and American leaders. It is very contemporary (whereas the genius of geopolitics itself is of course that its fundamentals are constant), very opinionated in a smarmy dinner party sort of way, i.e. bemoaning the 2004 US election results - bringing to mind the British newspaper headline of the time, "How Could 52 Million Yanks Be So Stupid?" Unfortunately the author is not a good contemporary political commentator, especially on current American politics - with which he is absolutely obsessed - making, for instance, the laughable argument that Hollywood carries conservative America's bathwater. Now that would be news to Sean Penn, Alex Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins!

What a loss. The editors should have a re-do and assign the title to an author who actually wants to write a primer about geopolitics.