Before reading this chapter, I never really questioned what the Arctic was. I just knew in my bones that I was an Arctic dweller, but couldn’t have articulated why. The different definitions are interesting. The easiest seems to be whether or not the area is above the Arctic Circle, as its a tangible line that can is measurable, though it does include/exclude some places that should probably be considered an Arctic place as well. The 10 degrees celsius rule makes sense as well, but with climate change occurring at such a rapid pace, that measurable could soon be out of date.
In terms of international relations theory, I think Social Constructivism makes the most sense, as it acknowledges that human opinion is fallible, and doesn’t always subscribe solely to one theory. Also importantly, it takes into account the fact that power and wealth can play a key role in international relations. Because when it comes down to it, all the key players are human before anything else, and can be susceptible to influences, both good and bad. Social Constructionists acknowledge that foreign policy must be formed with all other concepts in mind as well, and recognize that things like globalization and security are going to differ in the collective minds of the various players of the North.
Hey Erin,
I like that you bring up the point that the key players in world issues are human before all else, and this directly ties in to the idea that human opinion is ultimately fallible. I also believe that Social Constructivism is the most logical theory, though solid points and aspects can be drawn from the other three.
Erin, I had a similar reaction to yours while reading the debates on what can be considered the Arctic. I think this evidence of human complexity that lies in the tension between science, geography, governance, and culture makes social constructivism the most fitting answer as well. There is no one subjective approach or predictable equation for how all of these factors will influence developments in the Arctic, especially with how unpredictable people are.
I do think the Arctic Circle is an easy way to demarcate arctic nations, as long as there is international consensus that there are areas outside of the Arctic Circle, though not outside of the “A8,” that should be considered part of the region. The definition that confines the arctic to locations that do not rise about fifty degrees farenheight in July reminded me of time in the Arctic this summer, in July, when the temperature rose above 50 degrees. That definition I set aside, along with the Canadian definition, which was too specific to the geography of a single nation. The book makes a point that to most, the defining feature of the Arctic is the environment, which makes choosing a specific geographical definition a challenge and leaves out many countries that are collectively accepted as Arctic Nations. It is also a challenge as weather conditions in the Arctic are dynamic and we can assume the arctic ten years from now will look different from our current Arctic—-What is an Arctic with mostly melted permafrost?