Vladimir Kolossov Institut e of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

1. Valentin SEROV, The Kidnapping of Europe. Tretyakov State Galery, Moscow - Critical and functional approaches in geopolitics: geopolitical vision of Europe and the world, and the space of flows Vladimir Kolossov Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

2. A world geopolitical vision is a set of social representations about: • the relation between different elements of political space; • national security and external threats; • benefits and shortcomings of certain geopolitical orientations and strategies. It includes also representations about: • - the territory оf an ethnicgroup or/and political nation; • its boundaries; • - preferred political models; • - the country’s historical mission and the forces contributing or impeding its implementation. (after Dijkink, Agnew and Toal)

3. A sharp and dramatic gap between the territory, the boundaries, the international role and the mission of the country in the eyes of its political elite, ordinary citizens and the outside world. Virtually, in the imagination of different people and social strata a country can belong to different regions, have a different geopolitical situation. • The relation between foreign policy and the self-identification of people with their province, the country, the region of the world has a great symbolic importance. Answering to the question “Where, in which country and locality do I live?”, the individual unavoidably answers to the question “Who am I?”, “What are my ideals and values?”. • Naturally, these answers change with time. The geopolitical situation of a country is changing under the impact of various global and other external processes but also because people revisit their attitude to different level of power.

4. Three aspects of the world geopolitical vision: • historical (the attitude to the events of the past), • representative (ideas, principles, values and models which the state believes fundamental), • relational (the attitude to other actors and communities, comparisons between “here and there”, “good and bad”).

5. The normative world geopolitical vision is created in the process of socialization by the national system of education but especially by TV and other media.

6. The objectives of the project • to analyse how the vision of Europe and the world is shaped by the historical, political and economic background, gender, number of languages spoken and personal experience; • to reveal the relation of popular representations about a country and its “visibility” in the mind of the young people in different parts of the globe with the “real” importance of that country in the world economy and politics, its place in the space of flows. It was supposed that the geopolitical vision of the world depends on the physical and cultural distance between the countries (a similarity of language and religion).

7. We hypothesize that geopolitical visions are likely to vary within a country’s population depending on: • educational attainment and • socio-economic status, • by gender and age, • region and the size of a settlement. In BRIC, geographical, social and ethnic diversity, as well as deepening uneven regional development, are also powerful factors conditioning identity formation.

8. BRIC: • an artificial group or a specific type of countries?

9. More or less distinct representations about the outside world concern no more than 35-40 countries regularly covered by TV and other media. The list of these countries includes mainly large countries and rich countries which are the most important “newsmakers” EuroBroadMap survey of about 9,400 students in 18 countries, 2009-2010.

10. Admiration of Europe: the whole sample

11. Admiration of Europe: China

12. Admiration of Europe: Brazil

13. In the group of BRIC, Russian students have the most «Europe-oriented» image of the world. They are the most Francophile

14. Why Europhilia? Common reasons: • high level of well-being; • associations with tourism and leisure; • historical and cultural heritage; • democratic systems of governance . Large European countries are extensively covered by mass media and in school textbooks

15. Europhilia: distinctions • colonial past and deep relations; • language; • labour migrations and diaspora.

16. Russia: “eternal” questions of “high geopolitics” • Is Russia a European country? • Is Russia a unique Eurasian country which should look for its own way of development? Should it carefully protect its sovereignty as an independent center of the multi-polar world? • Is Russia the leader of the specific Eurasian civilization – in other words, should it seek to reintegrate the post-Soviet space and at what price? Etc.

17. Should Russia seek to become a full EU member? On the top – «yes, it should», in the centre – «no, it should not», below – «difficult to say». March 2001 – September 2008.

18. Explanations • Well-being, acceleartion of economic development (15%) • Free circulation, no visas • Considerations of prestige, recognition of the country’s economic and social progress (8%). • More democratic freedoms • More international security, less conflicts, struggle against the international terrorism. • Russia is a self-sufficient country and has its own culture (13%). • Russia is not ready (democracy, economy...) • Russia should not desserve economic interests of occidental powers • «The West has always been hostil to us, nobody wants us there».

19. A controversial attitude to the US Brazil, Russia and China: autonomous centres of power? China, India and Russia: American cultural hegemony. India: a more pragmatic foreign policy and counterbalances?

20. BRIC: common features of the world geopolitical vision • Cultural proximity does not matter much. Neighboring countries do not have much appeal (but in “absolute” terms and with few exceptions); • a negative perception of the Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan common for most respondents of the sample.

21. WHICH COUNTRIES ARE SPECIFICALLY ATTRACTIVE FOR THE RUSSIAN STUDENTS?

22. Mutual perceptions • Brazil: no sympathies with China • India and Russia: a more balanced but a negative perception of China • Russia: Brazil is a favourable destination but India is associated with the poor global “South” • A better view on Russia

23. Evaluation of Russia in the world Asymmetry: -0,60, 166th rank among 256 countries and territories

24. The size does matter • A relatively low international mobility because of a limitedaverage per capita income but also because of the size of BRIC • Travels mostly to the neighbouring countries, to a limited number of close popular tourist destinations (Singapore in India, Turkey and Egypt for Russia) and to some developed countries (USA and Japan for China, USA and UK for India, West Europe for Russia). • => a “bookish” geopolitical imagination inspired by stereotypes from media and Bollywood (in India - Yash Chopra). • The national level of self-identification clearly dominates (a “theory” of big countries). According to a recent survey (2009) conducted in 45 countries concentrating more than 2/3 of world population, 66% of respondents associate themselves first of all with their countries, 10% - with “world citizens” and 20% combine national identity with the trust in common human values

25. MOBILITY

26. BRIC: the classical triad “territory – boundaries – identity” • Maps summarizing the boundaries of the regions with which students associate themselves and their country, • maps summarizing the boundaries of Europe and of cultural regions of the world, • the name of the world region with which students associate themselves.

27. The abstract notions developed in “high” geopolitics like “Latin America”, “Third World” or “Slavic countries” are not popular and remain the mental constructions of the elite. Chinese: and Indians: either “Asia” or “China”. Brazilians usually call their region of the world “South America” and only rarely – simply “Brazil”.

28. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE WORLD REGION WHERE THE STUDENTS LOCATE THEMSELVES ?

29. WHAT IS THE EXTENSION OF THE WORLD REGION WHERE THE STUDENTS LOCATE THEMSELVES?

30. Europe is “monopolized” by WestEurope and EU. Concentric circles. However, if the outer boundary is extremely sharp in the south, west and north, it is less clear in the east.

31. Brazilians and Chinese and a much smaller part of Indians have a tendency to include in Europe all of Russia. However, the boundary between Russia and its western Slavonic neighbours – Ukraine and Bielorussia – appears often enough as the boundary of Europe. The conventional boundary between Europe and Asia along the Urals was drawn relatively rarely. • As for Turkey, Chinese and Brazilian students are more prone to consider it as a European country. This opinion is shared by only a small minority of Indians and Russians.

32. WHAT ARE THE WORDS ASSOCIATED TO « EUROPE »? The lower is the estimated family income, the less emotional and more complicated are the views of students. More foreign languages speaks a student, deeper are his/her representations. Female students usually share a more glamour image than men. Young people from more “central” cities as imagine Europe in a more adequate way. Russians developed a more institutional vision of Europe (“EU”, “euro” and even “NATO”). So, the notion of Europe in their mind is closely connected with the European Union as a club or prosperous and democratic states, and its currency. In the rest their associations are similar to the respondents of other countries.

33. WHAT ARE THE WORDS ASSOCIATED TO « EUROPE » BY THE STUDENTS OF RUSSIA?

34. The functional perspective: economic position in the world. Typical countries of the world semi-periphery (dominated and dominating)

35. The functional perspective: the diplomatic situation in the world, 1987-1988

36. The functional perspective: the diplomatic situation in the world, 2009-2010

37. Some conclusions • Well-being is the most important factor shaping the vision of the world. • Europe is “monopolized” by the EU, which has important political consequences. • The national level of self-identification clearly dominates (a “theory” of big countries). • From the functional perspective, Brazil and Russia are dominated and dominating. • China: the flows do not have a visible impact on the perceptions yet. • The vote in the UN is similar, though important changes in diplomacy occurred.

38. A too close association of Europe with the EU has important political consequences. As the perspective of Russia’s membership in the EU is not considered even in the long-term perspective, Russia is at the same time in and out of Europe. Therefore, this association can provoke among the young people who believe themselves Europeans the feeling of exclusion and the failure of hopes in modernization. • Certain EU measures like the negotiations about the cancellation of the visa regime and the establishment of four “common spaces” with Russia make suppose that Europe and EU are different notions. • At the same time, Russia is often treated by the EU as the constitutive Other. • European politics of conditionality is well known, while, as public opinion polls show, Russian citizens refuse to agree with a subordinated status in the relations with the EU. EU efforts to “europeanize” Russia provoke its self-assertive and often brutal attempts to stress its sovereignty and identity in face of the Western dominance.