عنوان مقاله [English]
While it is a well-known fact that geopolitics is a subject of boardroom discussions that has been derived from the debth of political science, there are those who consider it to be an academic discipline, independent of both political geography and political science. Yet, an etymological review of the case proves that political geography must have gained prominance as a specialist field of academic subject subsequent to the decline in geopolitical debates in the post-world war II era. In his other publications, this author has defined the beginning of political geography as an independent branch of social sciences in the modern thoughts of early years of 1950s which was the outcome of a wave of more or less similar thinkings of Richard Hartshorn, Jean Gottmann and Stiven Jones. These thinkers argued that space is not static but dinamic, and movements help political shaping of the space. In other words, these political geographers (global thinkers) turned any the ideas of political geography being born in the depth of geopolitical debates into a reality.
From amongst these three thinkers, Jean Gottmann argues in his phylosophical theorisation of the dinamics of geopolitics argues that the dinamics of politicl thoughts have moved to facilitate realizaytion of the idea that political perspect of space can shape geographical arena by causing it to become both fragmented and unified politically. He argued this philodophical vew of political space in his works under two new theories: iconography and circulation and with these theories he qualified the concept of territory in a dialectical capacity and helped emergence of political geography in connection with both ‘geography’ and ‘political science’, but independent of both.