{"id":1725,"date":"2025-08-11T20:04:32","date_gmt":"2025-08-12T00:04:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/?p=1725"},"modified":"2025-08-12T10:20:34","modified_gmt":"2025-08-12T14:20:34","slug":"critical-geography-and-the-arctic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/2025\/critical-geography-and-the-arctic\/","title":{"rendered":"Critical Geography and the Arctic"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n
<\/div>\n \n
\n
\n\n

\n Critical Geography and the Arctic\n <\/h1>\n \n \n\n

By Bogdan Koutsenko<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n <\/header>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

Different disciplines define the Arctic in different ways: oceanography, climate studies, geography, political science, cultural studies, and economics \u2014 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 \u2014 dependent not on the changing ways in which it is discussed but on the \u2018empirically grounded delineations\u2019 found above \u2014 would introduce a disconnect between the object of study \u2014 themes relevant to foreign policy in the region \u2014and the method used to compile the corpus of material used in its study.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cthere is no one Arctic; instead, multiple Arctics collide, coexist, and conflict with one another,\u201d 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<\/em>; she uses the category of \u201cVoices\u201d\u2014 discourses produced by actors who articulate visions of the future and \u201cdo politics\u201d\u2014 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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Arctic, for much of its recent history, has been perceived through the eyes of outsiders: decisionmakers in Ottawa, Washington, Moscow \u2014 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 \u201cremote portions of seven countries\u201d (Young 2005, 9). Wojciech Szczerbowicz, writing in Polish Polar Review, <\/em>draws on Iver Neumann\u2019s area studies theorization of the discursive construction of Arctic spaces to examine competing interpretations of the region and the emergence of dominant \u2013 yet mutable \u2013 hegemonic narratives (Szczebrowicz 2025). The agents of this interpretive framework are the states and institutions that participate in the discursive construction of the region.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This perspective is sensitive to the \u201cArctic\u201d as a delineating concept in policy action rather than a set of physical spaces \u2014 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References: <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dodds, Klaus, and Mark Nuttall. \u201cIntroduction: One Arctic, Many Arctics.\u201d In The Arctic: What<\/em> Everyone Needs to Know<\/em>, 1\u201310. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jamie Peck, Brett Christophers, Rebecca Lave, and Marion Werner. \u201cConcepts of Space and Power in Theory and in Political Practice (2009).\u201d In The Doreen Massey Reader<\/em>, 321. Agenda Publishing, 2018. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781911116844.023<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keskitalo, E. C. H. Negotiating the Arctic: The Construction of an International Region<\/em>. New York; Routledge, 2004. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Szczebrowicz, Wojciech. \u201cDeconstruction of Political Core of the Region: Arctic Discourses in Tatters.\u201d Polish Polar Research<\/em> 46, no. 1 (2025): 17. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.24425\/ppr.2025.153918<\/a>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wormbs, Nina. 2018. \u201cIntroduction: Back to the Futures of an Uncertain Arctic.\u201d In Competing<\/em> Arctic Futures: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives<\/em>, edited by Nina Wormbs, 1\u201318. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Young, Oran R. \u201cGoverning the Arctic: From Cold War Theater to Mosaic of Cooperation.\u201d Global Governance<\/em> 11, no. 1 (2005): 9\u201315. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1163\/19426720-<\/a>01101002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This examination explores critical geographic theory, providing an overview of major lines of thought and applies these to the arctic.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":338,"featured_media":1728,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[86,191,84,145,1,92],"tags":[190,108,189,80,42,170],"class_list":["post-1725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arctic","category-critical-geography","category-european-security","category-nato","category-news","category-brief","tag-arctic","tag-arctic-security","tag-critical-geography","tag-quick-take","tag-russia","tag-theory"],"acf":{"cu_post_thumbnail":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1725","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/338"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1725"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1725\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1732,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1725\/revisions\/1732"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1728"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/eetn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}