Mustafa Kemal’s overarching goal was secular modernity. What is this and what is a modern political system? Was it achieved? How did Iran and Turkey differ in their approach to create democracies? What were threats in order to achieve unity?
Mustafa Kemal was the leader Turkey working towards trying to create a society that would move forward from the rut which they had been in for so long. He was working towards modernizing the country and implementing western ideology to their society in order for it to prosper and have greater opportunity for growth and rights. He was doing all he could to break Turkey away from the traditions, laws, and past of the east. His presidency was one unlike any I have ever heard of and in certain ways was incredibly gruesome and cruel. His methods of imprisonment and execution reminded me much more of a dictatorship rather than a presidency as he didn’t allow for the voices of many to be heard. Although his methods were not ones that I would agree with, they were somehow effective in moving the economy/society forward for Turkey and achieving many great milestones that have allowed for advances for the country.
In comparison with Turkey, Iran seemed to move at a slower pace when it came to modernization and the changes in which Reza was pushing for. Due to the following of Shiite Islam, it was much more difficult for him to implement the changes in which he was working towards for westernization. The clergy of Iran prolonged, or prevented entirely, many progressive directions in which he was trying to move Iran for health, safety, and economic growth. The clergy was one of the biggest hindrances for their society and caused a delay for so many rights that Reza was working toward. Religions involvement in politics was a major threat for both countries as they tried moving forward. Because of the many setbacks and rebellions seen from both the people and the politicians of both sides made it a challenge to become progressive.
Dodds holds that it is important to think geopolitics critically. What does he mean by this? What are the problems that he sees in how geopolitics has been historically practiced? What does he propose instead?
By suggesting that geopolitics need to be thought of on a more critical level, Dodds is applying that there is more to the argument than just what is directly in front of you when it comes to geopolitics. The cultural aspects behind a country can create a much different outlook that geopolitics may not. Geopolitics is not rooted in environmental determinism. It goes beyond the geographic factors within a specific space. Dodds wants geopolitics to be thought of as more than just the affects a mountain range or hurricane may have on a specific location. There needs to be everyday context that is brought forth in order to hinder a negative overall outlook to be placed on specific nations. Historically speaking, geopoliticians have allowed for negativity to affect entire nations when only specific areas may have the issues causing the whole area to gain a negative label. Dodds wants to see geopolitics become more impactful as a whole. To do this, he suggests that geopolitics becomes more objectified and allow for the partnership between human agents and non-human agencies to be noted within the argument. The simplicity between people and places needs to be more critically thought of and the need to water down the information does not mean that important factors should be left out in order for others to understand it. Instead Dodds would like to see those factors included in a critical, yet understanding way.
Blog 4810 