The New Anglo-Saxons: Race, Space, and the Production of a Geopolitical Discourse

Abstract

AbstractThe question of how individuals produce and reproduce geopolitical ideologies is central to critical geopolitics, but there is little consensus on how this process works or what methods can meaningfully interrogate it. This article brings together methods from critical geopolitics, history, and sociolinguistics to assess the development, dissemination, and trajectory of Anglo-Saxonism, a late-nineteenth century movement which sought to unite the white English-speaking peoples of the world based on the racial heritage and democratic socio-political institutions they allegedly shared. We investigate the archival material of two prominent historians central to this movement—E.A. Freeman and H.B. Adams—to examine their own statements about their work, introducing the concept of “geopolitical metanarratives” to link between intention and discourse. We find that as Freeman and Adams intentionally worked to advance the movement, they relied on a spatial imagination that emphasized the historical continuity of socio-political institutions as the key racialized geopolitical metanarrative that served to underpin their efforts. 批判地缘政治学的核心问题是: 个人如何产生和复制地缘政治意识形态。这一过程如何运作、什么方法可以有效地探究这一过程, 我们几乎没有共识。本文结合批判地缘政治学、历史学和社会语言学, 评估了盎格鲁-撒克逊主义的发展、传播和轨迹。盎格鲁-撒克逊主义是19世纪末的一场运动, 旨在基于共同的种族传统和民主社会政治制度, 团结世界上讲英语的白人。我们研究了这场运动的两位核心历史学家E.A. Freeman和H.B. Adams的档案及其工作自述。通过引入“地缘政治元叙事”概念, 将意图和话语相联系起来。我们发现, 为了推动这场运动, Freeman和Adams依赖于一种强调社会政治制度的历史连续性的空间假想。这种空间假想是支撑Freeman和Adams的重要的种族化地缘政治元叙事。 El interrogante sobre cómo se producen y reproducen las ideologías geopolíticas es asunto central en la geopolítica crítica, aunque hay poco consenso sobre cómo opera este proceso, o sobre qué métodos lo pueden interrogar significativamente. El artículo junta métodos de la geopolítica desde la geopolítica crítica, la historia y la sociolingüística, para evaluar el desarrollo, diseminación y trayectoria del anglo–saxonismo, un movimiento de finales del siglo XIX que pretendió unir los pueblos blancos del mundo que hablaban inglés, con base en su herencia racial y sus instituciones sociopolíticas democráticas, que supuestamente compartían. Investigamos los materiales de archivo de dos destacados historiadores, fundamentales para este movimiento –E.A. Freeman y H.B. Adams– para examinar sus propias declaraciones acerca de su trabajo, introduciendo el concepto de la “metanarrativas geopolíticas” para ligar entre sí a la intención y el discurso. Descubrimos que en tanto Freeman y Adams trabajaron intencionalmente para impulsar el movimiento, se apoyaron en la imaginación espacial que enfatizaba la continuidad histórica de las instituciones sociopolíticas, como la metanarrativa geopolítica racializada que servía para apuntalar sus esfuerzos.Key Words: Anglo-American special relationshipAnglo-Saxonismcritical discourse analysiscritical geopoliticshistorical geography : 英美特殊关系盎格鲁-撒克逊主义批判性话语分析批判地缘政治学历史地理学 : análisis crítico del discursoanglo-sajonismogeografía históricageopolítica críticarelación especial angloamericana ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the handling editor, Dr. Josh Inwood, for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. This article originated as part of a master’s thesis at the University of Idaho, where Dr. Thomas Ptak and Dr. Sean Quinlan provided invaluable insights and guidance as committee members. The authors would additionally like to thank Dr. Rebecca Bennette, Dr. Joyce Mao, Dr. Febe Armanios, and Dr. Michael Geisler for their supervision of the bachelor’s work that began the research endeavor into Anglo-Saxonism. Finally, the authors appreciate Dr. Jaume Castan Pinos’ and Dr. Olivier Walther’s valuable comments on a draft of this article. The responsibility for the content and any remaining errors remains exclusively with the authors.DISCLAIMER STATEMENTThe views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force Academy, the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.Additional informationNotes on contributorsDavid G. RussellDAVID G. RUSSELL is a PhD student in the Department of Geography at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. E-mail: david.russell@ufl.edu. He holds an MSc in Geography from the University of Idaho and a BA in History from Middlebury College. His research has focused on quantifying the spatiotemporal patterns of political violence. Mr. Russell has conducted research at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, and has worked as a consultant to the OECD/SWAC, and as a research analyst at Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative.Steven M. RadilSTEVEN M. RADIL is an Assistant Professor of Geospatial Science in the Department of Economics and Geosciences at the U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840, USA. Dr. Radil is a political geographer whose research mainly focuses on the spatial dimensions of politically motivated violence. He is currently examining the various insurgencies and related civil conflicts across the Sahel and West Africa and routinely advises international organizations on these issues. Dr. Radil has regional expertise in West Africa, Central/East Africa, and East Asia and has published on a diverse set of political issues including terrorism, interstate war, civil war, urban violence, participatory governance, and policing.