The Geographical "Mental Maps" of American Foreign Policy Makers

Henrikson, Alan K.

doi:10.1177/019251218000100405

Cited by 55 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Certainly we can sympathize with Henrikson's (1980a) concepts of geographical field and behavior spaces, which focus on the decision-maker's lived space. If we can theoretically accept that "the activity that is most relevant to awareness of large-scale environments is, of course, physical movement" (HENRIKSON, 1980a, p. 510), we hold serious reservations to overemphasizing policy-makers direct material knowledge of distant places.…”

Section: Acquiring Geographic Knowledge In International Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By describing the actual life patterns of individuals (for example, his official travels), specifically by plotting the activity on cartographic charts, it is possible to record the geographic behavior of decision-makers and policy-makers. In brief, the two concepts can be hypothesized as typifying foreign policy planning (geographic mind) and the conduct of diplomacy (geographic field) (HENRIKSON, 1980a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acquiring Geographic Knowledge in International Politics

Vinha¹

2010

URI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a number of works relating geographic mental maps to international politics. Notwithstanding the various efforts to clarify and explain the conceptual framework underlying the geographic mental map research agenda, much theoretical bewilderment still persists. The concept of the geographic mental map has diverged considerably in definition and numerous methodological approaches have been undertaken. Consequently, no scholarly consensus has yet been reached. "Mental map" is still used as a catch-all term with only very vague notions as to its conceptual underpinnings. Several fundamental issues still need to be addressed. First and foremost, geographic mental maps are in need of a serious effort of conceptualization in order to be properly applied to the study of international politics. In particular, the question of how foreign policy decision-maker's geographic mental maps are formed has to date eluded a satisfactory response. With this in mind, this article shall consider some of the many ways individuals can acquire geographic knowledge from their political environment. For this purpose we draw from the vast theoretical and empirical literature that has emerged primarily from the fields of environmental psychology and behavioral geography. Despite the inherent limitations of adapting this knowledge to the field of foreign policy analysis, this literature is highly suggestive given that it serves as an important source of insight and hypotheses for those concerned with the understanding of foreign policy-maker's geographic constructs.

show abstract

Section: Acquiring Geographic Knowledge In International Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquiring Geographic Knowledge in International Politics

Vinha¹

2010

URI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They have also been called 'image-plans' (Henrikson, 1980) and 'operational codes' (Dijkink, 1998). In reality, every state has a set of specific strategic political-geographical assumptions, which are made by a government about other states and form its foreign policy (Taylor & Flint, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

US-Iran Relations in the Post-Cold War Geopolitical Order

Naji¹,

Jawan²

2011

ASS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The end of the Cold War era coincided with the beginning of a shift Iran's foreign policy from the ideological to the pragmatic. The collapse of the Soviet Union created an important geopolitical region in the north of Iran. The dialogue doors were opened by Khatami's "dialogue among civilizations" in contrast to the "clash of civilizations". With the election of Bush and especially after the September 11 th attacks, the US code was changed from globalist to regionalist. In this period Iran, was named as one of three countries in the "Axis of Evil". After 2005, the Iranian policy towards the US changed fundamentally so that Israel and the US were seen as the main enemies of Iran. Also, Iran's nuclear issue aggravated the hostility and it was used by the US to maximize its hegemony. In this context, the US efforts to impose its geopolitical codes on other countries to be involved in conducting its policies against Iran could be justified. It was also regarded as a geopolitical imperative, Today, the US has to curb Iran's ideological-political activities and if both Iran and the United States do not scale down their demands, military confrontation could be predictable.

show abstract

“…8 This previous analysis by O'Loughlin and Grant built upon Alan Henrikson's pioneering article on the 'mental maps' of US diplomats, a precursor to discourse analyses of geopolitical representations. 9 O'Loughlin and Grant took a broad quantitative and analytical approach, rather than Henrikson's narrative essay. Their methodology was similar to our own, a content analysis of the speeches with a focus upon their regional foci and the proportion of each speech devoted to foreign policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%