Вісник Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка


Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv



Kiptenko V.

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine


Geography as both a discipline and wide discourse explicitly aims to conceive the Earth as a whole. Human geography contributed a lot to the critical study of globalization. However, the academic inquiry suggests the lack of conceptualization, which can serve as a readable scholarly framework, teaching and learning in particular. This article scopes the weave of terms related to globalization and geography based on the Dictionary of Human Geography. Acknowledging the reservations of the Dictionary of Human Geography itself and understanding the limitations of the survey based on yet one dictionary this article ponders on the foundations, which can framework the geographical approach to globalization.  Focus on detecting the key concepts mentioned in the topical article, clarifying their interpretation and logical context for geographical nexus paves the way for platforming the systemized and generalized conceptualization. The basic concepts of economics and social sciences design the ‘flat-world’ metaphor. The last serves to the vital task of human geography aimed to disclosure of taken-for-granted geographical imaginary and an investigation of its (often unacknowledged) effects, thus, geographical conceptualization of globalization. Geographic arguments serve as an integral part of the logic of the ‘flat-world’ geographic imaginary of globalization debunking. The evolution of academic responses to the ‘political version’ of the world’s general state suggests essence, limitations and further development of skeptical, parameterized, geographically sensitive approaches, and counter-hegemonic critique of neo-liberal globalization. The disciplinary nexus of globalization implicitly refers to economic, industrial and agricultural, population and labor, urban and rural, regional, contrapuntal and feminist geographies. Moreover, the context of the above consideration reinforces the role of human and physical the geographies and the formal theories of location and spatialization, in particular. Notions of spatial organization, place-transcending and place-remaking dynamics deterritalization and reterritorialization, etc. suggest the need for further reverse exploration of over thirty geographical concepts and terms – the space, the place, the territory, etc.  –  in the context of globalization discourse. The mental map of the conceptual framework of globalization and geographical nexus summarizes the key findings.


globalization, geography, conceptual framework



DOI: http://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2721.2017.66.4


  1. Agnew, J.A. 2006: Globalization has a home address: the geopolitics of globalization. In D. Conway and N. Heynen, eds, Globalization’s contradictions: geographies of discipline, destruction and transformation. New York
  2. Castells, M. 1996: The rise of the network society. Vol. 1 of The information age: economy, society and culture. Oxford.
  3. Castells, M. 1997: The power of identity. Vol. 2 of The information age: economy, society and culture. Oxford.
  4. Castells, M. 1998: End of millennium. Vol. 3 of The information age: economy, society and culture. Oxford.
  5. Cosgrove, D. 2001: Apollo’s eye: a cartographic genealogy of the earth in the Western imagination. Baltimore, MD.
  6. Derec,G., Jonston R., Ceraldine, P., Watts, M.J., Whatmore,S. 2009ю The Dictionary of Human Geography / edited by Derek Gregory . . . [et al.]. – 5th ed.
  7. Friedman, T.L. 2000 [1999]: The lexus and the olive tree: understanding globalization, New York.
  8. Friedman, T.L. 2005: The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first centuryNew York.
  9. Gregory, D. 2004: The colonial present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq. Oxford.
  10. Hart, G. 2006: Denaturalizing dispossession: critical ethnography in the age of resurgent imperialism. Antipode 38 (5): 977-1004.
  11. Harvey, D. 1989: The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford.
  12. Harvey, D. 1999 [1982]: Limits to capital. 2nd London.
  13. Harvey, D. 2004: The new imperialism. Oxford.
  14. Harvey, D. 2005: A brief history of neoliberalism.
  15. Harvey, D. 2006: Spaces of global capitalism: a theory of uneven geographical development. New York.
  16. Held, D., McGrew,A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. 1999: Global Transformations: politics, economics and culture. Stanford, CA.
  17. Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. 1996: Globalization in question: the international economy and possibilities of governance. Cambridge.
  18. Marx K. and Engels F. 2002 [1848]: The communist manifesto,S.Moore; ed.G.Stedman Jones. London.

Download (.pdf)

Suggested citation:

Kiptenko V. (2017). Globalization: the geographical nexus. Visnyk Kyivskogo natsionalnogo universytetu, Geografiya [Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Geography], 1-2 (66-67), 37-41 (in English, abstr. in Ukrainian).