You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Revisiting the 'Pivot': The Influence of Halford Mackinder on Analysis of Uzbekistan's International Relations
The Geographical Journal
Vol. 170, No. 4, Halford Mackinder and the 'Geographical Pivot of History' (Dec., 2004), pp. 347-358
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3451464
Page Count: 12
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Geopolitics, Geography, Central Asian literature, Political geography, American literature, Asians, International politics, Human rights, Comparative politics, Geographic regions
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Since the end of the Soviet Union, many foreign policy intellectuals have peculiarly identified the Republic of Uzbekistan as the locus of Mackinder's 1904 'pivot' designation. A century on from his original 'Geographical pivot of history' lecture, this paper examines the work of a Russian, an Uzbek, and an American who use Mackinder to understand contemporary Uzbekistani geopolitical orientations, in particular with reference to the USA. Drawing on critical work on the history of geopolitics, it highlights that whilst these texts claim objectivity, they betray political and subjective foreign policy choices. It suggests that whilst the revival of interest in Mackinder testifies to the continued attraction of his ideas, this has, with rare exceptions, been based upon a superficial reading of both his work and the body of secondary literature, and that this raises both disciplinary and ethical concerns.
The Geographical Journal © 2004 The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)