Chapter Seven
106
In his “Global Interpretation Method of the World,” (2010) Gerard
Dussouy questions the adoptability of a strictly axiomatic approach to the
study of social phenomena as “...it is impossible, in all social sciences, to
practice any sort of a priori verification.”^17 Because a two-dimensional
map cannot capture the multi-scalar intersection of physical, demographic,
strategic, socio-economic, and cultural-ideological forces at work in the
geopolitical arena, “...we need to think in terms of the interaction of all
these things in different places and under varying circumstances.”^18
Dussouy presents a technique of gathering data that serves as an
empirical input into an inductive theory. The global system is partitioned
into five distinct geopolitical action spaces: physical, natural space; demo-
political space; diplomatic-military space; socio-economic space,
reflecting the globalization phenomenon; and symbolic, idealistic and
cultural space, representing the system’s subjective element. Each space is
analysed spatially in order to discover its internal structural logic (note
space-specific locations, disjunctive lines and arrows) and the systemic
forces it has to face (note arrows penetrating several/all spaces).^19 However,
a methodological insight into the construction of concrete indicators of
performance in individual action spaces is not presented.
Guyla Csurgai (2009) rejects any sense of geographical or historical
determinism, stating that: “geopolitical analysis is not the justification of
the territorial claims of a certain actor over another, based often on a
subjective interpretation of history, cultural factors and geography, but
rather the interpretation of the influence of these claims on a given
geopolitical situation.”^20 Csurgai’s geopolitical system consists of both
objective and subjective components. The former are: elements of physical
geography, availability of natural resources, boundary specifics, ethnic
composition and demography, socio-economic factors, and strategies of
actors. The latter reflect specifics of identity questions, the shape of
geopolitical representations (“mental maps”), and historical heritage.
Identification of individual attributes, and specifics of their mutual
interaction, are to be identified in a systemic geopolitical and geostrategic
analysis. By doing so, “geopolitical analysis can respond to the need of
using a multidimensional method to interpret the complexity of
(^17) Dussouy, “Systemic Geopolitics: A Global Interpretation Method of the World”,
136.
(^18) Murphy, “Gerard Dussouy’s Systemic Geopolitics”, 151.
(^19) Dussouy, “Systemic Geopolitics: A Global Interpretation Method of the World”,
143.
(^20) Csurgai, “Constant and Variable Factors of Geopolitical Analysis”, 48.