Introduction to Geopolitics

Semper Fi
(or
Semper
Fidelis
) is the Latin motto of the United States Marine Corps, and is translated as “always
faithful”: faithfulness that is promised to God, country, family, and the Corps. The use
of
Semper Fi
in the State of the Union speech hits upon different aspects of the nation-
alist story: the women back home are “ever faithful” while the nation’s men folk are
away fighting (contrary to the constant worries about fidelity of the characters of war
novels); such faithfulness is part of the institution of holy matrimony, blessed by a God
that is blessing the fighting too; the country demands a loyalty that requires people to
put their lives at risk, despite the claims to faithfulness to family. Loyalty to nation and
the Corps takes precedence over loyalty to family.
The point to emphasize here is that the practice of geopolitics requires geopolitical
agency in many different settings, including the home. The geopolitical actions of states
are dependent upon the actions and sacrifice of people like Michael Spann. How can
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5111
E M B E D D I N G   G E O P O L I T I C S   W I T H I N   N A T I O N A L   I D E N T I T Y
121

---

his wife’s loss, or the loss of any individual fighting for any country, be justified? In
other words, a foundational ideology, applicable in all countries, is necessary to justify
the conflict that is undertaken as part of a geopolitical code. Nationalism plays that role
by creating a sense of “community” and allegiance that warrants sacrifice.
Gendered nationalism and the masculinity of 
geopolitical codes
Though each country’s nationalism is unique, in the sense of its particular history,
nationalism is still consistent in defining particular gender roles, even during what are
described as “revolutionary” situations such as Cuba. Women consistently are identi-
fied with a subordinate role and their access to public positions limited. In this sense,
nationalism can be seen as a structure that contains a message of the “proper” roles for
men and women. At times of conflict a state’s geopolitical code may reinforce these
gender roles as warfare intensifies the different expectations of sacrifice expected 
of men and women: the “heroic” actions of fighting men and the “stoic” sacrifice of 
the women who are left behind. There is a constant feedback in this relationship too.
As men continue to dominate the public sphere, a masculine perception of the world is
maintained, with the inevitable result of aggressive geopolitical codes and wars.
Nationalism requires the construction of difference between the populations of
different states. Such difference allows for the construction of “enemies,” “threat,” and
“danger” as part of a states’ geopolitical code. These notions are dependent upon a
dominant military view in society that commands a particular vision of “a dangerous
world” and how to respond. From a feminist perspective the dominant military view
rests upon a masculine view of the world: the implication is that individual gender roles,
geopolitical codes, and the structure of global geopolitics are connected in practice and
ideology.
The concepts of militarism and militarization are related to how geopolitical codes
are constructed and what they contain. The core beliefs of militarism are:
(a) that armed force is the ultimate resolver of tensions;
(b) that human nature is prone to conflict;
(c) that having enemies is a natural condition;
(d) that hierarchical relations produce effective action;
(e) that a state without a military is naive, scarcely modern, and barely
legitimate;
(f) that in times of crisis those who are feminine need armed protection;
(g) that in times of crisis any man who refuses to engage in armed violent
action is jeopardizing his own status as a manly man.
(Enloe, 2004, p. 219)
Militarism is, then, an ideology, a particular view or understanding of society and
how it should be organized. It is a different ideology than nationalism, but they are
usually found hand-in-hand. Related to militarism is militarization “the multitracked
process by which the roots of militarism are driven deep into the soil of society” 
(Enloe, 2004, pp. 219–20). One of these processes is the way the military is constructed
I N T R O D U C T I O N   T O   G E O P O L I T I C S
122

---

as a masculine institution and war as a masculine enterprise. In this way, the masculine
nature of militarization is complemented and enhanced by the gender roles promoted in
nationalism, and vice versa (see Box 5.1).
The implications of militarization are individual, national, and global. In terms of the
construction of geopolitical codes, militarization is seen as a foreign policy issue because
of the dominant influence of the military in forming codes, and equating security with
military matters. Most importantly, militarization is especially successful when civilian
policy-makers acquiesce to a foreign policy implemented by force (Bacevich, 2005;
Enloe, 2004).
The militarization of a geopolitical code rests upon the dominance of men in posi-
tions of public office, who are willing to facilitate a foreign policy that rests upon
masculine assumptions about individual behavior that are then transferred to geopolitical
codes. The essential ideological building block is the masculinity myth: the notion “to
be a soldier means possibly to experience ‘combat’, and ‘combat’ is the ultimate test of
a man’s masculinity” (Enloe, 1983, p. 13; Hedges 2002).What it means to be a “man”
and effective military operation are mutually reinforcing:
Men are taught to have a stake in the military’s essence—combat; it is suppos-
edly a validation of their own male “essence”. This is matched by the military’s
own institutional investment in being represented as society’s bastion of male
identity. That mutuality of interest between men and the military is a resource
that few other institutions enjoy, even in a thoroughly patriarchal society.
(Enloe, 1983, p. 15)
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5111
E M B E D D I N G   G E O P O L I T I C S   W I T H I N   N A T I O N A L   I D E N T I T Y
123
Box 5.1 Foreign policy as a masculine practice
The militarization of any country’s foreign policy can be measured by moni-
toring the extent to which its policy:
■
is influenced by the views of Defense Department decision-makers
and/or senior military officers
■
flows from civilian officials’ own presumptions that the military needs
to carry exceptional weight
■
assigns the military a leading role in implementing the nation’s foreign
policy, and
■
treats military security and national security as if they were synony-
mous
(Enloe, 2004, p. 122)
Consider the foreign policy of your own country. Who is making statements to
the media about a particular issue, military officers, the foreign secretary (secre-
tary of state) or minister/secretary of defense? Does the Ministry of Defense/
Pentagon give regular news conferences?

---

Combat defines the “man” and also validates the existence of the military. Moreover,
combat as a masculine pursuit translates into the importance of the military as a mascu-
line institution that, furthermore, plays a role in the militarization of geopolitical codes.
The militarization of geopolitical codes is especially resonant when combat is in
progress, defined as “likely,” or a recent matter of national history. The foreign policy
experience of “combat” defines the identities of individuals (men and women) and,
hence, continues the relationship between the construction of individual identities and
the form of geopolitical codes.
Combat, constructed as an essentially masculine pursuit, rests upon women in two
ways. One is in the practical sense, the exclusion of women from combat duty but their
necessary role of “camp followers” (Enloe, 1983): in other words, women play a number
of “supporting roles” that are necessary for the military to function. Some of these roles
are with the services, such as nursing and clerical work. Other roles are outside the
services and even the law. Prostitution is perhaps the most obvious, but also the role of
the military or diplomatic wife (Enloe, 1990). Crucial to our connection of militariza-
tion, nationalism, and geopolitical codes is the twin needs of women’s support services
while women’s roles are controlled and restricted to prevent “disorder,” in the form of
women’s participation in combat. In the words of Cynthia Enloe:
This mutuality of interests has the effect of double-locking the door for women.
Women—because they are 
women
, not because they are nurses or wives or
clerical workers—cannot qualify for entrance into the inner sanctum, combat.
Furthermore, to