Geopolitics as theory: Historical security materialism

Two competing modes of protection, the real-state and federal-republic, distilled from
realist and republican (proto-liberal) security practices, entail differing forms of arm
control and patterns of institution-building (asymmetrical binding vs co-binding), and
in turn generate differing political structures (anarchy and hierarchy vs republics and
state-unions)
In order to reformulate geopolitics as a more conceptually robust and sophisticated
theory, the author employed a generalized version of the apparatus of Marxism
historical (production) materialism to construct geopolitics as historical security
materialism.

THE ARG
 Material environment of geography and technology significantly shapes
security politics.
o Human beings are fragile corporeal entities in continuous, intimate and
inescapable intercourse with the material world.
o Early analysts of political made casual propositions attempting to
explain variations in human political outcome across space and in the
relation between different political societies (as opposed to deductive
natural law and natural right arguments), they relied heavily on
material, particularly geographic factors.
 Material factors have a fragmentary and attenuated presence in contemporary
international and security theory.
 Realism, and current version of neorealism, often castigated for its excessive
materialism and does contain one central materialist variable, the distribution
of power.
 The decline of conceptual richness and theoretical sophistication of materialist
arguments in contemporary international and security theory was due to a
combination of political and intellectual developments.
o Association of the materialist geopolitics with the disaster in Nazi
Germany
o Association between Marxism and the USSR
 Most contemporary usages of the term geopolitics are casual synonyms for
realist views of international strategic rivalry and interaction.
 The lack of arguments in materialist geopolitics about security-political
relationships has several implications:
1. International theory now lacks the conceptual apparatus to grasp the security-
political implications of major changes in the material context (advent of
oceanic navigation, industrialism, nuclear weapons and the opening of orbital
space as terrain for strategic interaction)
2. Realist theories are able to make hypotheses about the operation of state-
systems, but not about the large and more fundamental question why there
are state-systems, and why the scope of it has changed so dramatically over
time.
 3. International theorist has lost sight of the many strong arguments relating non-
statist republican and federal security-political arrangements to material
contexts.
 TO SKETCH THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A MORE CONCEPTUALLY ROBUST
GEOPOLITICAL MODEL FOR THEORIZING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
MATERIAL CONTEXTS AND SECURITY-POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS, BOTH
STATIST AND NON-STATIST

- Historical security materialism constructed from a generalized version of the

conceptual apparatus of Karl Marx’s historical materialism of productive forces
and relations.
- Reformulate geopolitics as a theoretical framework in which changing forces of
destruction (geography and technology) condition the viability of different
modes of production (clusters of security practices) and their attendant
superstructures of political authpriry structures (anarchical, hierchical and
feral-republican)
o In which material context are which modes of protection security
functional?
- GEOPOLITICS AS THE ARBITER OF THE RELATIVE VIABILITY OF COMPETING
STATTIST-REALIST AND LIBERAL-REPUBLICAN APPROACHES AND
ARRANGEMENTS.
o SECURITY FUNCTIONALITY IS DETERMINED BY THE INTERACTION
BETWEEN THE CHANGING VOLUME AND VELOCITY OF VIOLENCE
CAPABILITY PRESENT IN DIFFERENT MATERIAL CONTEXT AND THE
DIFFERING ABILITIES OF THE COMPETING MODES TO RESTRAIN
VIOLENCE.

I. HISTORICAL MATERIALISM:
Materialist security arguments appear in 2 clusters:
1. Beginng with the Greeks and culminating in the Enlightenment
Before the industrial revolution the western political science (efforts to explain political
outcomes) focus upon nature in the sense of the material environment as a casual
factor.
 Basic claim of naturalist political science is that fundamental difference among
human societies are the product of the different natural environments (climate,
soil fertility, resources, population, topography and land-sea interaction)
 At the heart of this approach is the simple insight that material environments
produce constraints and opportunities that significantly affect the performance
of the very basic functional task of economic production and protection from
violence that are universally important in human life.
 The propositions of naturalist political science encompassed variables that have
subsequently been divided among the social sciences of psychology,
anthropology, geography, sociology, economics and political sciences.
 These theories rest on the simple assumption that the physical world is not
completely or even primarily subject to effective human control, and that these
realities impede or enable vital and recurring human goals.
 o The various ways in which these environments present themselves to
humans heavily shape the viability of human projects.
 POLITICS: occurring between two natures:
o The natural or intrinsic features of humans as biological organism
o The variable nature of the material environment.
2. Global geopolitical analysis (19th and early 20th centuries) emerges out of a crisis
and reformulation of the first. As historical change, evolution and revolution
became central topics of investigation.
Natural political science entered into a major intellectual crisis and was significantly
recast with conceptual innovations derived from the Darwinian revolution.
Two major limitations of naturalist theory precipitated these changes:
A) Early naturalistic theories of politics lacked the ability to explain historical
changes. Natural was conceptualized in either static or cyclical terms, because
nature seemed to change only rarely and slowly. WERE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN
DIFFERENCES ACROSS TIME IN POLITIES LOCATED IN THE SAME PLACE.
- There were two solutions inspired by Darwing:
o Conceptualized historical changes as the result of improved adaptation
to a static material environment.
o To incorporate changing technology into their conceptualization of the
physical environment, thus enabling them to locate the driver of change
in human arrangements in the nature exogenous to human control that
was changing via technological development. NEW HISTORICIST
MATERIALIST PROJECT OF EXPLAINING HISTORICALLY VARIABLE
POLITICAL OUTCOMES BY REFERENCE TO CHANGING MATERIAL
CONTEXT.
B) A weak understanding of how material environments shaped political
outcomes. The idea of natural selection in Darwin’s theory of biological
evolution offered a new and more plausible model of how material
environments shaped political outcomes.
- Applied to human society and politics, the idea of evolutionary change through
natural selection gave rise to functionalism as an explanatory argument. The
persistence of a particular social or political arrangement can be explained by
its superior fit with the constraints and opportunities of the context within
which it must operate.

MARXISM AND HISTORICAL (PRODUCTION) MATERIALISM

About human nature or species being, man is first and foremost a producing and
consuming being. However, humans are not simply more sophisticated animals
because they engaged in praxis, but they are fated to pursue their practical activity
within context, both material and social structures.
- Men make their own history, but not in circumstances of their choosing.

Marx’s historical materialism is the relationship between productive forces and modes.
Forces of production: ultimately decisive material reality of human life. Composes of
nature and technology embodied as productive capability (machines and other forms
of real capital) originally very primitive.
Insights of materialism and human nature are combined with structuralist image of
human agency as a free but contextually constrained force in history, and with the
constructivist claim that political practices generate political structures.

Mode of production: Cluster of interrelated productive practices, whose viability is

condition by the material context, and whose operation generates and depends upon
distinct social and political practices. Each mode of production fits a particular stage in
the development of the forces of production.
 “The hand mill will give you a society of with the feudal lord, the steam mills a
society with the industrial capitalist”
Together both constitute the base or infrastructure, which Marx contrasted with
superstructure of political, social and cultural relations.
 Different modes of producing generate, and in turn depend upon, different
institutional structures, ideologies and related ideational phenomena, an
insight now known as “structuration”
The superstructure is in an ultimately dependent relationship upon the infrastructure,
but not every aspect of a superstructure can be reduced to or is fully determined by
the features of the base.
 Marx claim that the forces of production determine the modes of production
amounts to the proposition that technological opportunities and constraints
create functional imperatives that determine the basic viability of different
modes.
Contradictions: is to say that there is a fundamental disjuncture between a particular
set of forces and a particular mode, and its attendant superstructure.
 The core notion here is that change does not occur smoothly and incrementally
but rather that tension and misfits grow in severity until they are resolved,
often violently, by a revolutionary change that brings into dominance a mode
and a superstructure more fitted to the material possibilities and constraints.

What a variety of versions of historical production materialism have in common is that

the periodize history on the basis of different stages in the material conditions of
production, and posit that the viability of different economic, political and cultural
systems is determined by their fit with these material contexts.
In the area of violence and security, the main line of argument is that violence is a
super structural phenomenon. Frederick Engels wrote that developments in violence
capability as being fundamentally derivative of developments of the forces of
production.
Marxism is deficient as a general theory of history because its account of violence, the
state and interstate relations is so inadequate.

II. HISTORICAL SECURITY MATERIALISM:

The extensive global geopolitical literature produced on the relationship between
world politics and the material forces unleashed by the industrial revolution.
Geopolitical theorists commonly naturalized social and political formations in addition
to emphasizing the importance of human nature and the natural material
environment.
GEOPOLITICS AS HISTORICAL SECURITY MATERIALISM:
In order to capture the insights of geopolitical argument and reformulate them in a
more conceptually sophisticated and theoretically useful form, the author proposed
the frame the main line of geopolitical argument as historical security materialism.
 Within the sphere of international relations, it might be said that political
developments constitute a superstructure over the system and the
development of the means of destruction.
Both Marxism and geopolitics are varieties of historical materialism. The fundamentals
of geopolitics as historical security materialism can thus be schematized in parallel with
the Marx’s historical production materialism.
First, the philosophical anthropology of security materialism, its assumptions about
human nature, humans are by nature vulnerable to corporeal destruction, and
providing security from violence is the minimum precondition for the pursuit of all
other ends.
Humans are condemned to seek security in circumstances both socially produced and
natural material, not of their own choosing.
Security practices and the political structures they generate stand or fall as viable
providers of security not by the will or wish of human agents that produce them, but
by their fit with the constraints and opportunities of material environment within
which they must function.
Human security praxis thus occurs “between two natures” the fixed nature of humans
as a species, and the historically variable “nature” of the material environment.
FORCES OF DESTRUCTION: decisive material reality. Are the diving and variable factor
in security materialism.
 Are composed of the interaction of nature, particularly geography and
technology, as both revelation of natural possibilities, and as embodied
destructible capabilities.
 As with the forces of production, these were originally very primitive, but have
been successively developed.
These theories are as much about technology as geography (as in technologies of
communications, or transport, or weapons). These are integral to the forces of
destruction as are especially destructive technologies in shaping both the velocity and
volume of violence available in particular material context.
Another central feature is that history can be periodized into segments or stages in the
basis of distinct material context.
To say a materialist theory is historical means that the shaping materialist forces vary
from period in fundamental ways.
The material environment is often constituted by a heterogeneity of geographic and
technological features, which impose conflicting constraints and opportunities.
It is possible to identify four broad periods characterized by distinct forces of
destruction:
1. Pre-modern: (to 1500) composed of horses and camels, sails and oars, and
bows and catapults.
2. Early modern (1500-1850) composed by horses and camels, ocean sailing and
navigation, and gunpower.
3. Global—industrial (1850-1945) composed of steel ships powered by coal and
oil, airplanes, telegraphs and radio and high explosives
 4. Late Global or Planetary-nuclear (after 1945) composed of jet airplanes, rockets
and missiles, satellites and nuclear explosives.
Together the forces of destruction and the modes of protection constitute the base or
infrastructure which is distinct from, and which determines, the superstructure of
political, social and cultural relations.
In the security model, as in classical Marxism, the superstructure is in an ultimately
dependent relationship to the infrastructure, but not every aspect of a particular
superstructure can be reduced to, or fully explained by, the constraints and
opportunities posed by the base of material destructive conditions.
The relationship between the material conditions, modes and superstructures in the
security materialist model can be cast in terms of functional viability.
 Material conditions determine whether particular modes and superstructures
are security viable, but material conditions do not determine whether or not
security-seeking agents will pursue – or successfully generate- practices and
structures that are security viable in particular material context.
Once brought into existence, security practices and structures tend to persist whether
or not the material context in which security systems are in contradiction to their
material context.
 In the security materialist model, the most important form of contradiction
occurs between obsolescent modes and emergent material context.

REAL-STATIST AND FEDERAL-REPUBLICAN MODES OF PRODUCTION:

Modes of protection are clusters of related practices not reducible to any other
component. At their core they are about how violence capacities and authorities over
violence capacity are institutionally regulated or unregulated. They vary with regard to
how violence capacities are controlled and how both internal (or domestic) and
external (or international) violence threats are addressed. The sustained operation of
these practices in turn generate structure (patterns of political authority) which
support and reinforce these practices.
Bothe modes entails a rich superstructure of identities, ideologies and discourses.
 Real- state mode of protection: distillation of statist and realpolitik security
practices. Seek to produce obedient subjects. This mode emphasizes undivided
internal sovereignty and mutual recognized autonomy.
1. Arms control and practice of centralization and concentration seek to
produce the classic attribute of a “state”, a centralized monopoly of
violence in a circumscribed territorial space in order to avoid what for
realist is the most enduring and significant security threat, the unit-level
anarchy of civil war and revolution.
o One monopolized violence capacity must be continuously subordinated
and disciplined to ensure that military instruments are closely
responsive to central will and direction.
2. Asymmetrical binding leading to the establishment of hierarchical authority
structures. The establishment of an internal political hierarchy has
traditionally been central project of realpolitik and its absolutism and
monarchical precursors.
3. Balancing which is intended t respond to external security threats. External
real-state practices aim to avoid external hierarchy (subordination to
 imperial rule) through military counterpoise and thus reinforce and
reproduce external anarchy.
 Federal-republican mode of protection: distillation of liberal and proto-liberal
republican security practices. Entails citizens acting according to elaborate sets
of norms (cast of vocabulary virtues). This mode emphasized internal popular
sovereignty and external pooled, divided and circumscribed pattern of
legitimate authority.
1. The arm control practices seek to prevent both the concentration of
violence capacity and the unregulated situation of anarchy. This is achieved
by sustaining and regulating an internal balance of violence capacity with
militias, small “standing armies” and extensive arrangements of divided,
separated and concurrent authority over violence employment.
2. Co-binding seek to deal with both internal and external security threats.
When institutional links are established between actors (individual and
group) that symmetrical reduce their autonomy vis a vis one another.
o Internally: entails the delegation of circumscribed authorities to
governmental organs arranged with mechanisms of mixture, separation,
balance and constitution
3. Externally: practices the same move on a larger scale, co-binding with other
political societies to produce an arrangement of mutual restraints, known
as “compound republic” or “states-union”

SECURITY, VIOLENCE RESTRAINT AND MODE VIABILITY:

In which material context are real-state and federal-republican modes of protection
viable as providers of security?
Security results, from the presence of restraint on violence power and insecurity
results from the absence of restraint of violent power.
There are only possible only 2 possible sources of restraint:
- Limits posed by the material context
- Socially constructed limits generated by security practices and their attendant
political structure.
By examining the ways in which different material context provide or fails to provide
restraints produce a rough and broad understanding of which modes are viable in
which context.
As the forces of destruction have evolved in four broad periods, the overall levels of
violence capacity have evolved from being violence poor to being violence rich. Both
the velocity and the volume of violence capacity have grown enormously.
 Real-state mode: security functional in violence-poor material context but are
of decreasing viability in violence-rich material context. Were security
functional in the relatively violence -poor material context of the early modern
era.
o Well fitted to provide security in violence-poor material context because
they compensate for this poverty and because the insecurity potential
inherent in the structure of intra-unit hierarchy and inter-unit anarchy
are unrealizable in violence-poor context. In situations of violence
poverty, security institutions must be preoccupied continuously with
balancing against potential outside threats
 o Violence-rich context render real-state security practices and
arrangements simultaneously superfluous and insufficient.
o The generic security problem posed by intra-unit hierarchy despotism
and by inter-unit war.
o In violence-poor context, internal hierarchies are unable to violently
oppress large numbers of their own subjects. Early hierarchies are
unable to violently oppress large numbers of their own subjects.
o In violence-rich context the continued absence of internal and external
institutional restraints on the application of violence combines with the
absence of restraints in the material context to produce large-scale
insecurity, manifest in the unrestrained internal violence of the modern
totalitarian state and the unrestrained external violence of industrial
and nuclear total wars. The absence of institutional restraints has
become a manifest source of insecurity.
 In the global industrial era: the real-state mode was security dysfunctional, as
the anarchy of the European-state system produced total war and system
collapse in the first half of the 20th century, and the hierarchic state realized its
full potential in totalitarianism.
 Federal-republican: security functional in violence-rich material context but are
of decreasing viability in violence-rich material context. Federal-republican
practices and structures, manifest in the political integration of the EU and the
confederal security arrangements of NATO, are security functional because
they are able to more fully systematically restrain violence
o Dysfunctional in violence-poor material context because they are not
well suited to solving actual security problems and because the
problems, they are well suited to solving are not salient. Violence-poor
rendering inter-unit co-binding unnecessary.
o Functional in violence-rich: internally: practices of arms-control and
authority constitution are security functional in violence-rich material
context because they avoid internal anarchy without producing
uncheckable internal hierarchy. Externally: avoid both the Sylla of total
war and the Charybdis of empire.