Geography, military geography, and critical military studies

Abstract

This paper is about the distinctive contributions which contemporary military geography might make to the wider critical military studies project. The paper notes the relative absence of the study of military topics across Anglophone human geography in the second half of the twentieth century, and the resurgence of interest in the spatialities of militarism and military activities over the past decade or so in tandem with the emergence of critical geography. The paper then goes on to examine three key tropes of geographical inquiry to illustrate how a critical military studies alert to spatiality might develop further. These are geography's rich tradition of research and writing about landscape, geography's engagement with concepts of representation, and geography's theorizing on scale. The paper argues that a geographically informed critical military studies can be illuminating on matters of war and militarism because of its attention to the located, situated, and constitutive natures of military power and its effects. The paper concludes with a reflexive commentary on what critical military studies might take from ongoing debates in human geography about the necessity of engagement and co-inquiry with research subjects, when a focus on military topics raises ethical questions about collaboration. We argue that transparency, accountability, and awareness of the multiple and complex politics of academic inquiry are necessarily part of the wider critical military studies project.

A genealogy of military geographies: Complicities, entanglements, and legacies

“…She argues this is particularly pertinent for academics: “[w]hile much of the subject matter of military geographies may not necessarily be pleasant to teach or think about, it is certainly necessary” (p. 732). Further, Rech, Bos, Jenkings, Williams, and Woodward () have argued that the sub‐discipline of military geography has a specific contribution to make to the emerging interdisciplinary project of critical military studies, which interrogate the taken‐for‐granted categories related to the military, militarism, and militarisation. They suggest that a geographically informed critical military studies can locate the situated natures of military activities, explore these as socially constituting practices, and account for the diverse range of spaces in which military activities and militarism shape and are shaped by (Rech et al, , p. 50).…”

Combat, Cohesion, and Controversy

“…This tradition provides a range of ways of considering landscape, from the descriptive to the affective. 8 My reading of The Combat Soldier flagged up endless instances where the significance of military landscapes, and different approaches to these landscapes, seemed apparent. For example, the book includes discussions of the uses of techniques for the recording of terrain, ranging from the sketches used to instruct platoons in appropriate techniques for offensive action in the First World War trenches, to the contemporary uses by French and British troops of the construction and use of terrain models for Rehearsal of Concept (ROC).…”

Conclusions: the Value of the University Armed Service Units

“…As we note elsewhere, we are strong advocates of the necessity for military research, particularly research identifying as 'critical' in social science terms, to engage directly with the organisations and institutions which are the focus of empirical exploration, practical critique and critical conceptualisation. 71 Our view on this is shaped also by our knowledge from across the social sciences, arts and humanities, about how and why academics might engage with the military, and what this might facilitate in academic research and writing. 72 Our experience of researching the USUs has reinforced this view on the necessity for researchers of military phenomena to engage directly with military personnel and institutions, particularly where the intention is informed critique.…”