cong-resses.
No. Year Place
1 1871 Antwerp
Organization and focus Initiated by Charles Ruelens and ad-dressed to specialists of “la science de la terre” in order to honour Mercator and Ortelius whose statues were unveiled. Central issues concerned surveying, place names and map projections. One of the few professio-nal geographers of the times, Elisée Reclus attended and actively partici-pated in the meeting.
Polar Issues The geographical section was domi-nated by Neumayer´s proposal for an Antarctic Station during the forthcom-ing Transit of Venus (1874).
2 1875 Paris
Organization and focus Attended by Richthofen, Perthes, Petermann, Sir Henry Rawlision RGS, Lesseps, Béaumont, Vivien de St.
Martin. A twofold definition of geo-graphy considered as an end in itself (géographie physique) and as the study of the relationship of the earth with its inhabitants (géographie politi-que, ethnographipoliti-que, éconmique) was approved.
Polar Issues Exploration was established as a distinct section.
3 1881 Venice
Organization and focus Conducted its business in eight sections that formed the basic framework for future congresses.
Polar Issues Exploration continued as a distinct section. Colonial issues were domi-nant but the polar regions were mentioned.
4 1889 Paris
Organization and focus Chaired by Ferdinand de Lesseps, President of the Geographical Society of Paris. Structured in seven groups.
Polar Issues Lesseps introduced the issue of Arctic and Antarctic expeditions in the group dealing with voyages of exploration but the matter was not debated.
5 1891 Berne Organization and focus Attended by Allbrecht Penck, Eduard
Brückner, Joseph Partsch and Sir Thomas Holdich. Penck proposed a world map on a standard scale of1:
1,000,000.. First attempt by Kalten-brunner to establish an International Geographic Institute.
Polar Issues Exploration was neglected as the decision supporting the world map stated “car il ne reste pour ainsi dire plus de grandes découvertes à faire”.
6 1895 London
Organisation and focus Chaired by Sir Clements Markham RGS. Special attention given to the teaching of geography. Commissions appointed for the development of a bibliography of geographical works and the promotion of polar exploration.
Polar Issues Resolution 3 advocated exploration of the Antarctic Regions, as “the greatest piece of geographical exploration still to be undertaken”and recommended to scientific societies to undertake this work “before the close of the century”.
7 1899 Berlin
Organization and focus Chaired by Ferdinand von Richthofen.
Stressed the importance of scientific work. H.R. Mill, J. Scott Keltie, Fried-rich Ratzel, P. Vidal de la Blache, Erich von Drygalski contributed to the debate. Otto Nordenskjöld and William S. Bruce also attended the Congress.
Polar Issues Markham proposed a division of labor between the British and German expeditions to Antarctica. Drygalski agreed and proposed a scheme for international meteorological Antarctic cooperation. Chairman Richthofen requested Argentina to upgrade its sub-Antarctic observatory at Año Nuevo Island.
8 1907 USA
Organization and focus The Congress itinerated between Washington D.C. and 4 other cities.
Chaired by Robert F. Peary, the Arctic explorer. Penck´s world map was strongly supported by the American Geographical Society chaired by Isaiah Bowman.
Polar Issues The recommendations of the Inter-national Polar Congress (Brussels, 1906) establishing an International Polar Commission (IPC) were endorsed.
9 1908 Geneva
Organization and focus Chaired by the President of the Geo-graphical Society of Geneva, Penck (Germany) and Gannet (USA) report-ed on progress achievreport-ed by the international world map project. The number of sections expanded to 14.
Polar Issues Adopted Resolution 5 advocating the
“systematic exploration of the polar areas” introduced by Arctowsky who presented a paper on Antarctic explo-ration; and Resolution 4 supporting the International Polar Commission, introduced by Lecointe.
10 1913 Rome
Organization and focus Structured work on eight sessions incorporating methodology and teach-ing as separate sections. The Com-mission for the International Map decide to call a conference in Paris in December, 1913. Oceanographic work was promoted. A move to create an International Geographical Union was delayed by the outbreak of war.
Polar Issues Umberto Cagni reported to the Con-gress on the work of the International Polar Commission (IPC)
2 The National Geographic Magazine’s portrayals of Antarctica Jason Davis, Department of Geography, The Ohio State University, USA Email: davis.1937@osu.edu
Abstract
This paper explores how Antarctica has been portrayed by various authors from 1888 to 1997 in the National Geographic Magazine and how this might reflect trends in the dominance of various interest groups over that period of time.
Previous scholarship in popular geopolitics has shown that the study of popular media can offer insights into the political process, which bolsters the efforts undertaken here. The analysis undertaken involves the creation of six themes derived from previous scholarship of Antarctic identities as well as observations of the quotes regarding Antarctica garnered from National Geographic articles from this period of time. These six themes are: Antarctica as a place of national interest, Antarctica as a place of science, Antarctica as an economic opportuni-ty, Antarctica as an environmental "World Park", Antarctica as an aggressor to be conquered, and Antarctica as a source of awe. Using these six themes as a guide and overarching structure, this paper explores the metaphors presented within each theme and how they advance the goals of various interest groups or reflect changes to Antarctic politics over time. The growth of multiple interests from just an initial view is shown to have occurred, with the International Geo-physical Year of 1957-58 as a focus point of changes to Antarctic identity.
2.1 Introduction
“The media is often presumed to exert a prominent role in shaping public opin-ion and hence foreign policy formulatopin-ion. Interestingly, according to some U.S.
Antarctic policymakers, the most influential media force pertaining to Antarctic policy in recent years has been The National Geographic Magazine1.
The political construction of Antarctica is informed by a number of different sources. Critical studies of geopolitics have suggested that there is both a for-mal geopolitics, composed of experts and government officials signing treaties and trying to control the process, and a popular geopolitics, composed of the construction of ideas for mass consumption and prevailing attitudes2. Studies of the United States of America’s involvement in Antarctica have been largely cen-tered on analysis of formal geopolitics, studying the actions of policy-makers3. Although the public perception of Antarctica is sometimes regarded as a non-factor4, it is an important socio-cultural and political background element and has had an influence in Antarctic policy as a form of popular geopolitics. If I may extrapolate from the introductory quote, the most powerful influence on Ame-rican perceptions of Antarctica over the last century has been the National
1 Joyner and Theis 1997: 71.
2 Ó Tuathail 1996; Dodds 2000.
3 Hall 1989; Joyner and Theis 1997; Moore 1999; Moore 2001.
4 Moore 1999.
Geographic Magazine. This paper will investigate the representations of Antarc-tica produced in the texts of the articles within National Geographic Magazine in order to understand how the different portrayals of the continent have surged and declined in popularity in accordance with the evolution of activities on the continent.
Popular geopolitics is comprised of media elements such film, television, politi-cal cartoons, newspaper, magazines, music, and even architecture which affect public perceptions of geopolitical issues. Outside of Antarctica, scholars have shown how popular geopolitics can influence events as well5. If produced in a purposeful manner to mislead the public, this is known as propaganda. Not all popular geopolitics is propaganda, but all of it adds the creation of a discourse that can shape the course of political debate. Particular magazines have been analyzed as institutional sites where geopolitical knowledge is constructed.
Reader’s Digest has been shown to have attempted to shape political percep-tions of the United States public regarding the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union by creating spaces within its text where the two could be counterpoised against each other using specific narratives6. Popular maga-zines have therefore been shown to have a hand in shaping political discourse.
The National Geographic Magazine is one of the most popular magazines to regularly incorporate Antarctica. Indeed, the editors even claim that "Few re-gions of the earth seem to hold greater fascination for Geographic readers than do the Poles, both North and South" (James 1990). The National Geographic Society, the parent organization of National Geographic Magazine, occupies a unique place in the American cultural and political milieu. It is a private organi-zation which has had close ties to the United States government. It sits on the uneasy line between scientific research and popular entertainment. It has a worldwide readership of six million people7. Although the general goal of the Society is to promote scientific research, it does not always reflect the views of the modern scientist, but instead creates a narrative about the places it details for its own agenda.
National Geographic Magazine is the main medium through which the public of the United States receives information about places which may be considered exotic to their everyday experience. The Antarctic is considered an exotic local for most Americans, and is therefore mostly perceived through this magazine.
The magazine’s set of editorial policies encourage positive accounts of subjects covered and a writing style that is accessible to the public8. Through this pro-cess, the editors claim to articulate a progressive national vision9. The maga-zine has been shown to reflect hegemonic American ideals through its articles and with that has been critiqued for its orientalist editorial tendencies and other American cultural traits and perceptions. Specifically, National Geographic Magazine has been used to examine how the United States perceived “The
5 Ó Tuathail 1996; Dodds 2000 Ó Tuathail 1996; Dodds 2000.
6 Sharp 1996; Sharp 2000.
7 National Geographic Website 2005.
8 Haraway 1989.
9 Lutz and Collins 1993.
New South”10, the justification of U.S. territorial expansion into the Philippines11, and the coding of gender in primatology studies12. All of these analyses lead me to believe that National Geographic Magazine is an excellent source to use in order to understand how the U.S. public geographically imagines Antarctica.
Popular perceptions of Antarctica have helped to define how its governance should operate and its acceptance of certain laws. Changes to the popular conception of the Antarctic continent have lead to large impacts in its laws and regulations. An example of this would be the demise of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA): which was finalized in 1988 but brought down through the widespread promotion of a
“World Park” conception of Antarctic identity, and subsequent adoption of a temporary mining ban in the Madrid Environmental Protocol of 1991 because of this promoted identity13. Some scientists feared that the adoption of a “World Park” identity would result in a decrease in scientific power on the continent and opposed it14. The importance of public perceptions of Antarctica has been re-cognized by the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). The USAP has gone to tremendous lengths to accommodate a mythology of Antarctic science, cast-ing the continent as a “natural laboratory for the sciences”. The USAP’s over-seer, the National Science Foundation (NSF) seeks to popularly promote a scientific perspective on Antarctica through promoting the Antarctic Artists and Writers Program, annual invitations for journalists to report on Antarctic scienti-fic activity, and educational programs to take grade-school teachers to the region to work with scientists15. These directed efforts to control or influence U.S. public perceptions of Antarctica show the degree of influence that popular geopolitics has over the USAP.