Critical Geography and the Arctic
Different disciplines define the Arctic in different ways: oceanography, climate studies, geography, political science, cultural studies, and economics — all use different working definitions to explore research questions. Critical geographer Clause Dodds observes that many of these definitions change over time (Dodds and Nutall 2019). Moreover, in the Arctic, where temperature increase resulting from global warming is four times the global average, even the most empirically grounded delineations of the region, like tree cover, permafrost penetration, and the 10-degree Celsius July isotherm, lack permanence and reliability (Dodds and Nutall 2019). Critical geography accommodates these changes by conceiving geographic boundaries as functionally related to the discourses developed by and derivative of human actors and institutions. A static demarcation of the Arctic — dependent not on the changing ways in which it is discussed but on the ‘empirically grounded delineations’ found above — would introduce a disconnect between the object of study — themes relevant to foreign policy in the region —and the method used to compile the corpus of material used in its study.
Dodds and Nutall outline five principal factors that hinder a straightforward delineation of the Arctic region: climate change, geopolitics, globalization, technology, and northern autonomy. They argue that “there is no one Arctic; instead, multiple Arctics collide, coexist, and conflict with one another,” and suggest that the Arctic should be defined in relation to the specific research questions being explored (Dodds and Nutall 2019, 37). Similarly, Nina Wormbs acknowledges that definitions of the Arctic, and historic trajectories of the region, ultimately come down to power; she uses the category of “Voices”— discourses produced by actors who articulate visions of the future and “do politics”— as part of her three-pronged approach in tracing the construction of Arctic spaces (Wormbs 2018, 3). In the view of critical geographer Doreen Massey, the construction of spatial identities and relations should be understood as an ongoing project at the nexus of countless relationships between participating agents (Massey 2009). The Arctic is a space constructed through the interweaving priorities of diverse Arctic stakeholders (Szczebrowicz 2025).
The Arctic, for much of its recent history, has been perceived through the eyes of outsiders: decisionmakers in Ottawa, Washington, Moscow — the capitals of Arctic nations. According to E.C.H. Keskitalo, perceptions of the Arctic in Canada have long been dominated by a federal perspective (Keskitalo 2004). Oran Young suggests that this logic applies to the Arctic more broadly, as a region comprising the “remote portions of seven countries” (Young 2005, 9). Wojciech Szczerbowicz, writing in Polish Polar Review, draws on Iver Neumann’s area studies theorization of the discursive construction of Arctic spaces to examine competing interpretations of the region and the emergence of dominant – yet mutable – hegemonic narratives (Szczebrowicz 2025). The agents of this interpretive framework are the states and institutions that participate in the discursive construction of the region.
In summary, critical geography examines how dominant understandings of space are shaped by power relations and human interactions. Discourse plays a central role in connecting distinct physical geographies and shaping perceptions of their interrelation. By foregrounding the interplay between discourse and the physical space it evokes, it is possible to reject rigid and static definitions of the Arctic. This allows for changing conceptualizations of space by positioning geography downstream of discursive norms; the ‘Arctic’ thus functions as a signifier for substantive policy concerns.
This perspective is sensitive to the “Arctic” as a delineating concept in policy action rather than a set of physical spaces — regions (administrative, geographic, and otherwise), settlements (cities, towns, villages, and hamlets), geographic features (lakes, rivers, mountain ranges, islands). It also recognizes the Arctic as a space where decision-making capabilities are concentrated in national capitals. Relying on a preconceived list of search terms in carrying out media monitoring would likely shift the focus of data collection to a more localized perspective, likely patterned with an altogether different set of policy considerations.
References:
Dodds, Klaus, and Mark Nuttall. “Introduction: One Arctic, Many Arctics.” In The Arctic: What Everyone Needs to Know, 1–10. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Jamie Peck, Brett Christophers, Rebecca Lave, and Marion Werner. “Concepts of Space and Power in Theory and in Political Practice (2009).” In The Doreen Massey Reader, 321. Agenda Publishing, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781911116844.023.
Keskitalo, E. C. H. Negotiating the Arctic: The Construction of an International Region. New York; Routledge, 2004.
Szczebrowicz, Wojciech. “Deconstruction of Political Core of the Region: Arctic Discourses in Tatters.” Polish Polar Research 46, no. 1 (2025): 17. https://doi.org/10.24425/ppr.2025.153918.
Wormbs, Nina. 2018. “Introduction: Back to the Futures of an Uncertain Arctic.” In Competing Arctic Futures: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Nina Wormbs, 1–18. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Young, Oran R. “Governing the Arctic: From Cold War Theater to Mosaic of Cooperation.” Global Governance 11, no. 1 (2005): 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01101002.