Review Human Geography 2023, Vol. 16(2) 200–211 © The Author(s) 2023 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/19427786231157712 journals.sagepub.com/home/hug Geographies of nationalism Natalie Koch1,2 Abstract This review article considers recent scholarship on the geographies of nationalism by focusing on three key binaries that have defined the field of nationalism studies: inclusive/exclusive (geographies of community), love/hate (geographies of emotion), and past/future (geographies of time). It argues that asking who participates in constructing such conceptual dualisms, geographers can offer important insights about how nationalist discourses underpin contemporary practices of governing ourselves and others as political subjects—and their multifarious spatial dimensions. Geographers are well positioned to investigate the drawing of conceptual boundaries as political acts, with real effects in the world, rather than intellectually “wrong.” As such, this article calls for nationalism scholars not to outright reject binaries, but to take them seriously as a way to open up broader questions about the geographies of nationalism that all subjects of today’s state system must confront. Keywords Nationalism, identity politics, time geography, affect, binary, methodological nationalism Geografías del nacionalismo Resumen Este artículo de revisión considera la erudición reciente sobre las geografías del nacionalismo centrándose en tres binarios clave que han definido el campo de los estudios del nacionalismo: inclusivo/exclusivo (geografías de la comunidad), amor/ odio (geografías de la emoción) y pasado/futuro (geografías del tiempo). Argumenta que al preguntar quién participa en la construcción de tales dualismos conceptuales, los geógrafos pueden ofrecer ideas importantes sobre cómo los discursos nacionalistas sustentan las prácticas contemporáneas de gobernarnos a nosotros mismos y a los demás como sujetos políticos, y sus múltiples dimensiones espaciales. Los geógrafos están bien posicionados para investigar el trazado de límites conceptuales como actos políticos, con efectos reales en el mundo, en lugar de intelectualmente “incorrectos”. Como tal, este artículo pide a los estudiosos del nacionalismo que no rechacen rotundamente los binarios, sino que los tomen en serio como una forma de abrir preguntas más amplias sobre las geografías del nacionalismo que todos los sujetos del sistema estatal actual deben enfrentar. Palabras clave nacionalismo, política de identidad, geografía del tiempo, afecto, binario, nacionalismo metodológico Introduction Nationalisms are famously two-sided in many respects: as a political discourse, they are described as both forwardlooking and backward-looking, civic and ethnic, inclusive and exclusive. But in a recent special issue about the use of binaries in nationalism studies, James Kennedy and Maarten van Ginderachter (2022) critique their persistence as a major failing. They stress that binaries constrain our understanding of nationalism, arguing that “they do not sufficiently allow for a variegated understanding of nationalisms 1 Institute of Geography/Geographisches Institut, University of Heidelberg/ Universität Heidelberg, Germany 2 Department of Geography and the Environment, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, USA Corresponding Author: Natalie Koch, Institute of Geography/Geographisches Institut, University of Heidelberg/Universität Heidelberg, Berliner Straße 48, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Email: nkoch@syr.edu Koch and the ideologies that underpin them” (Kennedy and van Ginderachter, 2022: 453). Their critique is valid insofar as nationalism is a social construct, a set of practices and concepts mobilized by situated actors. It does not have an essence that the traditional binaries can readily map. A common response to the intellectual problem of dualisms is that scholars simply need to reject or replace them, often with some kind of “nuanced continuum” accounting of the phenomenon at hand. But as John Law (1994) argues, “to turn away from dualism doesn’t mean that we should ignore the ordering strains towards dualism built into the modern project. Instead, we should seek to treat dualism as a social project” (Law, 1994: 138). Timothy Mitchell (1991) makes a similar point in his analysis of the state-society dualism, showing the conceptual borders between “state” and “society” are themselves a resource. This is because certain actors construct, act on, mobilize, and otherwise profit from such binaries, and in this way, maintain a given financial and economic order (Mitchell, 1991: 90). Law and Mitchell thus suggest that scholars should not outright reject binaries, but instead need to ask how binaries are mobilized and taken for granted in modernist political projects – like the territorial state and its nationalisms. This review article applies this line of inquiry to the geographies of nationalism. Because nationalisms encompass many different binaries, which I cannot properly survey here, I highlight three that geographers could explore more deeply in future research: inclusive/exclusive (geographies of community), love/hate (geographies of emotion), and past/future (geographies of time). I suggest that by asking who participates in constructing such conceptual dualisms, geographers can offer important insights about how nationalist discourses underpin contemporary practices of governing ourselves and others as political subjects—and their multifarious spatial dimensions. Inclusive or exclusive? Nationalism’s geographies of community As an identity narrative and grammar of political subjectivity, nationalism is imagined, internalized, and performed in myriad ways. Nationalist stories of self-affirmation celebrate the culture and identity of the nation, while also delimiting the bounds of that group through (more and less strictly policed) narratives about who legitimately “belongs,” between “us” and “them” (Paasi, 1996). To do so, these community-building narratives of inclusion and exclusion draw their emotional fuel from both positive and negative feelings, frequently mixing pleasure and animosity, love and hate, joy and antipathy. Nationalism is an inherently affective phenomenon because it is tied to the experience of community, of “what Max Weber called a Zusammengehorigkeitsgefuhl, a feeling of belonging together” (Brubaker, 2004: 46). As 201 geographers have long shown, nationalism is a spatial expression community because it “is fundamentally an ideology and political action program designed to convert land into national territory” and is thus “a mode of constructing and interpreting social space” (Kaiser, 2002: 231; see also Anderson, 1988; Herb and Kaplan, 1999; Hooson, 1994; Kaplan, 2018; Kaplan and Herb, 2011; Knight, 1982; Mayer, 2000; Murphy, 1990; Storey, 2001; Williams and Smith, 1983). Whatever the context, nationalist discourse invariably includes diverse storylines about how these boundaries of “us” and “them” should be drawn. For example, white nationalists in the United States or Hindu nationalists in India articulate a narrow vision of who “should” be included in the national community based on race and religion. But in both countries, these exclusivist storylines coexist with inclusivist storylines that delineate the boundaries of the national community as encompassing people of different racial and religious backgrounds. Rather than a problematic analytical divide between exclusive and inclusive versions of nationalism, the U.S. and India examples highlight how there is actually direct political conflict about this divide – about whether the exclusivist or inclusivist nationalist vision is the “correct” one (see e.g., Berry, 2017; Blazak, forthcoming; Chowdhury and Keane, 2021; Darby, 2020; Hart, 2020b; Kaplan, 2020; Koch, 2019; Sinha, 2021; Solomon et al., 2021; Vitolo-Haddad, 2019). Indeed, the rapid growth of xenophobic and animosityfueled nationalist storylines, espoused by far-right politicians and populist leaders across the world since the mid-2010s has sparked new interest among scholars, who suddenly became anxious about the perceived threat of these forms of nationalism to the cosmopolitan worldview that they once took for granted. This newer scholarship on the geography of “exclusionary nationalisms” or “ethno-nationalism,” aims to show how hate-based and exclusionary scripts of nationalism work to territorialize a community within an imagined “pure” (or “purified”) homeland (e.g., Avni, 2021; Anderson and Secor, 2022; Bescherer and Reichle, 2022; Bosworth, 2022; Chatterjee, 2021; Conversi, 2020a; Cunningham, 2020; Dahlman, 2022; Decker et al. 2022; Dempsey, 2022a, 2022b; Devadoss and Culcasi, 2020; Dossa, 2021; Flint, 2004; Getzoff, 2020; Goalwin, 2017; Goonewardena, 2020; Hart, 2020a; Khan, 2022; Koch and Vora, 2020; Kolstø and Blakkisrud, 2016; Luger, 2022; Mulej, 2022; Mullis and Miggelbrink, 2022; Nagel and Grove, 2021; Shoshan, 2016; Singh, 2022; Stock, 2020; Wondreys and Mudde, 2022; Yiftachel and Rokem, 2021). This new research raises the alarm about how certain nationalist scripts are harnessed by individuals to promote harmful, violent, and exclusionary practices in the construction of local communities. These problems have unique contemporary expressions, but the broader set of border-making practices is a key focus of scholarship on the geographies of nationalism and nationalism studies more broadly. For 202 example, the hate-mongering of professed nationalists was a topic of special concern in Euro-American scholarship following the brutal conflicts surrounding the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s (Brubaker, 1995, 1996; Campbell, 1998; Dahlman, 2005; Dahlman and Williams, 2010; Judah, 2000; Kecmanović , 2002; O’Loughlin and Kolossov 2002; Ó Tuathail, 1996; Ó Tuathail and Dahlman, 2004; Pavković , 1997; Toal and Dahlman, 2011). One important academic outcome of the explosion of interest in violent ethnonational conflict following the Balkan wars was that critical nationalism scholars began to voice a concern about Western habit, whereby the “irrationality of nationalism is projected on to [non-Western] ‘others’” (Billig, 1995: 38). Michael Billig (1995) traces this academic habit of vilifying non-Western nationalisms to a number of scholars, but most prominently, Walker Connor, who argued for a distinction between “nationalism” as something backward and irrational, and “patriotism” as something beneficial and necessary (Billig, 1995: 55). The simplistic moral geography that underpins such approaches, which are rooted in Orientalist thinking, has been widely critiqued (see also Hage, 1996; Todorova, 1997; Webster, 2011). Though most longtime scholars of nationalism are familiar with this part of the field’s history, sensitivity to the problem of stigmatizing the nationalism of “others” while overlooking one’s own national biases has been lost in the flood of scholarship on far-right and populist identity politics since the mid-2010s (Koch, 2017, 2019). Much of this writing implicitly or explicitly constructs a moral geography whereby exclusionary nationalist storylines are set in contrast to the “good” cosmopolitan, inclusionary forms of nationalism (e.g., Antonsich and Petrillo, 2019; Ferretti, 2022; Kalb, 2021; Marshall and Staeheli, 2021; Kastrissianakis et al., 2021; Thiollet and Assaf, 2021a, 2021b; Yanik, 2017). Many scholars are explicit in stating their wish to promote inclusive, cosmopolitan identity politics, but the challenge with this simple “disclosure” of one’s positionality is that it implies that nationalism is fine if we can just promote the “right” kind. This pattern was seen with the 2021 inauguration of the U.S. President Joe Biden: following four difficult years of hate-based nationalism from former President Donald Trump, Biden’s inauguration became a spectacle on the American left to celebrate the “good” kind of inclusive nationalism that his administration was imagined to herald (see Boot, 2021; Carlson, 2021; Viala-Gaudefroy, 2021). But of course, the supposedly “good” form of nationalism of U.S. Democratic cosmopolitanism over Republican xenophobia is still nationalism. Just as all “more inclusive” nationalisms are still nationalisms. Insofar as narratives of good nationalisms build a moral map set against “bad,” aberrant, or toxic nationalisms, they continue to naturalize the very phenomenon of nationalism. And in so doing they reinforce the sociological forgetting of the violence that gave rise to all nationalisms, as well as the silencing of violent nationalist war-making in Western Human Geography 16(2) countries that are imagined to be morally superior (Billig, 1995; Biolsi, 2005; Churchill, 1993; Coddington, 2020; Hage, 1996; Kosasa, 2000; Lindsay, 2012; Ryser, 2012; Wolfe, 2006). The longstanding critique of this moral posturing among Western authors, often implicit in their writing about nationalism, is especially important to recall now because it highlights the theoretical problems that arise when scholars assume a normative valence to nationalism. “We” expert scholarly readers cannot simply map the moral geographies of “inclusive” or “exclusive” nationalist scripts, without implicating ourselves in the political project of drawing such a boundary between good/bad and us/them. This analytical problem—of allowing our own national biases to filter our reading of nationalist discourses —is called “methodological nationalism” (Koch, 2020a). Critical scholars have understood this problem for many years, but because of how pervasive and hegemonic nationalism is in our contemporary world, there is a constant threat that we smuggle in our own nationalist assumptions of good and evil. Of course, each of us will have a personal interpretation of “inclusive” and “exclusive” nationalist storylines, but the important contribution that geographers can make is not to naturalize our own moral geographies in this binary, but rather to ask: how does it get constructed by specific political actors and, in turn, how is it spatialized and reflected in nationalism’s geographies of community? Love or hate? Nationalism’s geographies of emotion An established question of nationalism studies is: how do individuals come to identify so strongly with the nation or the state, such that they are willing to kill and die for it? In Michael Billig’s (1995) critique of Western scholarship on non-Western nationalisms in the 1980s and 90 s, discussed above, he challenges the simplistic divide of “good” patriotism based on narratives of love and community, and “bad” nationalism based on narratives of hate and violence thus: The problem is how to distinguish in practice these two allegedly very different states of mind. One cannot merely ask potential patriots whether they either love their country or hate foreigners. Even the most extreme of nationalists will claim the patriotic motivation for themselves. Fascists will protest that they are defenders, not attackers, only taking against foreigners when the latter are a danger to the beloved homeland. Hitler, for example, imagined that he was defending Germany against the Jews, asserting in Mein Kampf that “the Jew is not the attacked but the attacker.” Today’s fascists, likewise, claim that they only desire to protect the homeland from invasion, conspiracy and racial pollution. The hatreds will be justified in the name of love. (Billig, 1995: 57). Koch Indeed, this comingling of pleasure and enmity a running interest of nationalism scholars, who have been publishing on the affective pull of nationalism since the 1960s (e.g., Bellah, 1967; Hayes, 1960; Kedourie, 1961). Although affect is often framed as a “new” topic today, scholars have analyzed the tracking its geographies of emotion for more than 60 years showing that nationalism’s emotional register cannot simply be placed on a continuum. Rather, it always mobilizes a mix of emotions—sometimes experienced simultaneously and other times separately. In the past few decades, scholars in geography and ancillary fields have traced the wide range of positive emotional experiences enlisted in nationalist practices, covering everything from national holidays and other spectacles, sporting events, monuments, and the most mundane rituals of nationalist participation (e.g., Antonsich and Skey, 2016; Benwell et al., 2019, 2021; Brewster and Brewster, 2010; Dittmer, 2013; Edensor, 2002; Faria, 2014; Ferdoush, 2019; Fuller, 2004; Hagen, 2008; Hung, 2007; Homolar and Löfflmann, 2021; Koch, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2020b; Kong and Yoeh, 1997; Militz, 2016; Militz and Schurr, 2016; Molnár, 2016; Myadar, 2017; Paasi, 2016; Podeh, 2011, 2022; Rohava, 2020; Rossol, 2010; Skey, 2011; Stewart, 2021; Tomlinson and Young, 2006; White, 2017; White and Frew, 2019). As this research shows, nationalist events, practices, and rhetoric can be immensely pleasurable for participants who join in one way or another. A key aspect of this pleasure is the positive feelings of conformity and obedience that comes with (re)affirming one’s membership in a group. There is also pleasure in receiving recognition as belonging to a national group, derived from what Clifford Geertz (1973: 237) describes as a desire to be “a recognized and respected somebody in the world who counts and is attended to.” Nationalisms appeal to this emotional energy, and speakers who harness this well in addressing a national audience “dress it in rhetorical finery and, then, these speakers-as-outfitter hold a mirror so the nation can admire itself” (Billig, 1995: 98). Appealing to a person’s desire to feel important and recognized is a rather straightforward way that nationalist rhetoric draws on pleasure. A more complicated aspect is how nationalism provides the discursive framework for a person to perform their subjectivity as a “good” citizen of the nation. As Lisa Wedeen (1999) explains in her analysis of the Syrian nationalist rhetoric under Bashar al-Asad’s regime, official rhetoric is orienting insofar is it offers citizens a clear set of guidelines for “public compliance”: “The rhetoric specifies the parameters of the permissible, communicating acceptable forms of speech and behavior to citizens” (Wedeen, 1999: 45). Although Wedeen’s focus here is on the reproduction of authoritarian political culture in Syria, she and other scholars of nationalism under authoritarian systems show that established storylines offer a sense of safety to subjects, who can master them and thus perform their loyalty to an oppressive regime (see also Adams, 2010; Goode, 2021). 203 Going one step further, we also see that many people take pleasure in following the rules, in publicly demonstrating their compliance. Even in a culture of fear, social regulation does not just silence or warn of potential transgressions. It can also encourage people to voice support, admiration, or even love of political elites, through a system of positive reinforcement. Communities reward compliance and this can feel good. Antonio Gramsci (2008) famously addressed this in his Prison Notebooks, stressing how the “prize-giving” activities of groups and political actors are inseparable from repressive elements of social life: “praiseworthy and meritorious activity is rewarded, just as criminal actions are punished (and punished in original ways, bringing in ‘public opinion’ as a form of sanction)” (Gramsci, 2008: 247). Nationalism is built on and experienced as such a moral economy in which “docile”/“obedient” subjects are valorized and rewarded, rhetorically and materially. Dressing in patriotic clothes or “behaving” like a patriot (e.g., serving in the armed service or waving a flag) are all part of a normative system in which the surveying gaze is invited, often explicitly to achieve certain rewards, small as those might be. Viewed thus, nationalism draws its strength from a confluence of top-down and bottom-up desires. It is an affective resource brought to life by leaders and followers who are recruited to the larger project of community-building, such that individuals “go willingly, following […] their impulses to seek pleasure in their own cultivation” (Adams, 2010: 187). In this sense, national identity is “a negotiated process by which people recruit themselves through everyday acts of ‘national’ resonance” (Kemper, 1993: 17). Acts of self-recruitment are perhaps easier to discern in analyzing the celebratory expressions of nationalism, like at parades and sporting events. But they follow the same pattern in the more violent practices of nationalist bonding too, such as when people enlist to fight a war in the name of the nation or join a hate-based nationalist group. For example, scholars who examine state-based militarism have shown that nationalism is not just about building up a sense of hatred for the Other through combat, but that the pleasure of wartime bonding or pride in serving one’s country is also the vital glue for acts of violence in the name of the state or the nation (Conversi, 2015; Cowen and Gilbert, 2008; Flint, 2005; Kuzio, 2022; McDowell, 2008, 2022; Woodward, 2000). There is, in short, a kind of pride and pleasure that comes with obeying social expectations and demonstrating compliance with the moral framework of nationalism that construes “sacrifice” as the utmost virtue of a national subject. By committing acts of violence to “protect” the nation—whether as a military subject or as a subject of a far-right extremist group —individuals take pleasure in acts of social obedience, and often the moral superiority that comes with publicly performing this subject position. Not all members of a particular community will esteem acts of violence as “good,” of course. But nationalist discourse serves as an important 204 resource to grant moral license to violence, legitimating it by positioning “in the name of” the nation. Whether this claim to legitimacy is deemed valid depends on the audience that an individual or community deems to be the legitimate adjudicator of what is “good” for the imagined nation. And more specifically, it depends on how this audience is scaled. This scalar question is especially important in understanding recent far-right movements because people who recruit themselves into nationalist projects do not necessarily seek the validation of a community at the same scale as others who also see themselves as acting in support of the “nation.” Two examples help to illustrate this point. First, in the United States, military service members of all ranks are largely treated as national heroes in public—routinely given special discounts at commercial outlets, given priority boarding on airplanes, applauded at sports games, and much more. In this context, their participation in the nationalist institution of the military is framed by the broader community as something positive (Bernazzoli and Flint, 2010; on a similar dynamic in the UK, see Yarwood et al., 2021). But another expression of American nationalism is seen in the case of the Proud Boys—a far-right, neo-fascist extremist group that glorifies violence in promoting its vision of America as a “white” nation. Even though support for the group grew precipitously during the time of Donald Trump’s presidency, it is still widely perceived as fringe and their nationalist story about violence is not broadly accepted by the American public. This notwithstanding, members of the Proud Boys feel the pleasure of community in their circle of peers and like-minded individuals. Even though their public activities may be defined by hate, it is important to see that members of such groups experience their enactment of nationalist zeal as something positive. They find pleasure in acting on their own moral maps, personally aligning themselves with a social system that frames their obedience as a good or dutiful or sacrificial act, and all the while receiving the moral validation of their community (Blazak, forthcoming; Vitolo-Haddad, 2019). These two examples—of military servicepeople and extremist group adherents—are notable for the different scale of social acceptance and rewards that members receive for their nationalist performances. Whether lauded by society at large or a much smaller fringe group, the scalar variability does not make the affective pull of pleasure in violence any less real to an individual. But even where the emotions themselves are the same, their mixing plays out on a different scale, thereby differently affecting the political outcome. Although the territorial extent of a community is an important theme in geographic studies of nationalism, there has been little attention to the differential scale of the audience that a person might desire moral approbation for their performance of the nationalist imaginary. Extending our recognition that emotions matter in nationalist discourse, then, geographers could productively ask more critical questions about the scalar and spatial Human Geography 16(2) expression of nationalism’s affective encounters and the geographies of emotion that they build upon, imagine, and challenge. Past or future? Nationalism’s geographies of time A third defining binary in nationalism studies relates to time: in glorifying the nation, nationalisms simultaneously look backward and forward. Scholars have examined the backward-looking orientation of nationalism in many contexts, vividly showing how identity narratives are consolidated around myths and invented traditions, education systems, memorial landscapes, and countless other cultural and political interactions with the past (Allen, 2008; Anagnost, 1997; Anderson, 1983; Forest and Johnson, 2002; Gellner, 1983; Hobsbawm, 1990; Johnson, 1994; Smith, 1999, 2000, 2002). Much of this research has focused on how living individuals are taught to relate to the dead through particular sites and memorial practices (e.g., Bellah, 1967; Borghi, 2021; Dempsey, 2022a; Drozdzewski, 2014; Drozdzewski et al., 2016; Gordon and Osborne, 2004; Jones and Garde-Hansen, 2012; Markwick, 2008; Marshall, 2004; McDowell, 2008; Muzaini and Yeoh, 2005; Paasi, 2016, 2020; Tamm, 2013; Till, 1999). Far less attention has been given to the future in nationalism studies, even though references to it are found in most of the field’s classic texts, which discuss how national imaginaries relate to the ideas of destiny, posterity, and the unborn. As Anthony Smith (2002: 20) writes in “When is a nation”: “It is through a common public culture and education that the dead, the living and yet unborn are felt to be bound together into a single community of citizens.” In part, the focus on the dead rather than the unborn in scholarship on nationalism may be because geographers as a whole have not given much attention to the future. And even where geographers have called for our discipline to engage more explicitly with the future, nationalism is rarely part of these calls or the broader literature on time-space (see e.g., Anderson, 2010; Anderson and Adey 2012; Ho, 2021; Jeffrey and Dyson, 2021; Kellerman, 1989; Kurniawan and Kundurpi, 2019; Lenntorp, 1999; May and Thrift, 2001; Merriman, 2012). But taking the binary of past and future seriously, we can begin to see how nationalism’s geographies of time are far more diverse than studies focused on memory and historical narratives suggest. In calling for more geographic research on the future over 10 years ago, Anderson and Adey (2012: 1533) encourage geographers to ask: “How might we attend to the future in its interrelations with past and present outside of an assumption of linear or cyclical temporality and in a way that attends to the multiple relations with the future?” This interweaving of time geographies is especially relevant for nationalism studies. The past and the 205 Koch future are deeply connected in all nationalisms, the primary purpose which Kaiser (2002: 232) suggests is “to construct and maintain the past, present and future images of nation and homeland within a set of mutually understood and accepted parameters over time, so that members of the nation and homeland being made perceive both as ‘natural’ and ‘eternal.’” The intertwining of past and future is invariably expressed spatially. This is exemplified in how developmentalist discourse is built through the tropes of nationalism. Whether nationalist visions of development involve education, highmodernist cities, or state-scale planning schemes, they spatialize particular visions of the future (e.g., Adaman and Akbulut, 2021; Akhter, 2022; Centeno and Ferraro, 2019; Dove and Kammen, 2001; Holston, 1989; Koch, 2018; Laszczkowski, 2016; Li, 2007; Olds and Yeung, 2004; Scott, 1998; Sneddon, 2015; Staeheli and Hammett, 2013; Woo-Cumings, 1999). A vivid illustration of future-oriented developmentalism is found in Soviet expressions of nationalism, which were above all defined by aspirational narratives of a glorious future (Buck-Morss, 2000; Mally, 1990; Stites, 1989). Marxist ideology, Giddens (1987: 303) argued, could “readily be adapted to messianic goals and is the locus classicus of historicity conceived of as linking the past to an immanent future.” The USSR’s famous Five-Year Plans aimed to fulfill its goals for the future in the present through concrete development projects across the country’s territory, such as through Joseph Stalin’s renowned steel city, Magnitogorsk (Kotkin, 1995), Nikita Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands campaign to bring Central Asia under intensive agricultural cultivation (Cameron, 2018), and even into the cosmos through the expansive Soviet space program (Andrews and Siddiqi, 2011; Siddiqi, 2010). While these projects aimed to achieve the future in the present, materially inscribing shining examples of Soviet strength in the national homeland, they also taught citizens how to see themselves as subjects striving to realize an alternative future: “Utopian visions, ‘castles in the air,’ are scientific, Lenin wrote, when they motivate a ‘new people’ to realize a revolutionary plan” (Buck-Morss, 2000: 67). The new Soviet man [sic] was not only a person to be crafted today, but also a person that living citizens had a duty to serve (Cheng, 2009). Similar messianic visions have underpinned the geography of time in American nationalism. In A Republic in Time, Thomas Allen (2008) challenges the established focus on spatial aspects of early U.S. nationalism, which does not adequately address the role of time geographies in colonial narratives about westward expansion and “manifest destiny.” He excavates an 1839 article in the Democratic Review, “The Great Nation of Futurity,” written by John O’Sullivan years before the idea of “manifest destiny” was coined. In the essay, O’Sullivan writes that “American patriotism is not of soil,” but that it is defined by the future: “The expansive future is our arena, and for our history” (quoted in Allen, 2008: 17). Allen suggests that the inherent spatial contradiction of the American settler colonial project—the fact that the nation’s supposed homeland was not unfolding on a blank slate, but on the land of Indigenous people subject to genocide—is what the “The Great Nation of Futurity” and related temporal narratives tried to resolve, “by making time the medium for an effusive nationalism, in which the future itself would become American territory. The viability of the young Republic lay in this process of expansion through time” (Allen 2008, 23). Re-reading early colonial nationalism in the U.S. with a focus on the future is insightful because it shows how fundamental temporal imaginaries are to nationalist discourse. Time geographies are not about prioritizing time over space, but rather centering the relationship between time and space, as well as the relationship between different temporal imaginaries. In the development of early U.S. nationalism, the political negotiation of the boundary between past and future was also a negotiation of the boundary between space and time. Asking how past/future and space/time boundaries are drawn and made relevant, or irrelevant, could be a useful way of rethinking our assumptions about many nationalisms around the world. Interrogating these boundaries is also important for understanding how nationalist imaginaries are shifting with the contemporary climate crisis, as all visions of environmental futures are rooted in context-dependent discourses that prominently include nationalism (Conversi, 2020b; Conversi and Friis Hau, 2021; Dalby, 2020; Koch, 2014, 2022, forthcoming; Ridanpää, 2022). Scholarship on the geographies of nationalism and the future (and the past/future binary) could thus join the growing body of research on “anticipatory politics” and the situated environmental imaginaries that they draw upon and inscribe (Anson, 2020; Barker, 2020; Cassegård and Thörn, 2018; DeBoom, 2021; Ferdoush and Väätänen 2022; Ferry, 2016; Granjou et al., 2017; Grove, 2021; Groves, 2017; Horn, 2018; Methmann and Rothe, 2012; Swyngedouw, 2010, 2013). But as this work shows, the temporal geographies that are invoked and imagined as relevant in discussions about climate change do not negate the relevance of a past/future divide, but rather politicize that boundary—often in a high-stakes manner, as it is called into negotiations of guilt and responsibility for addressing today’s most pressing environmental challenges. National identities continue to be hegemonic in today’s geopolitical architecture of territorial states, so geographers can offer valuable insights about how environmental futures are imagined and contested through nationalist frames in ongoing debates about climate change. Conclusion Binaries do not just constrain our understanding of nationalism; they also inform it. Binaries can be dangerous when scholars wield them uncritically, but we also have a 206 Human Geography 16(2) responsibility to interrogate the work that they do in the world. That is, when the people and institutions we study use binaries, it is incumbent upon us to analyze how they do so and with what effect. In this review article, I have focused on several key binaries that have long defined the study of nationalism—inclusive/exclusive (geographies of community), love/hate (geographies of emotion), and past/ future (geographies of time). These dualisms are important in defining the literature on the geographies of nationalism, but they are also important in defining how ordinary people experience and imagine their identity as part of a “nation.” By taking such binaries seriously, nationalism scholars can open up broader questions about the geographies of community, emotion, and time that are built through drawing—and contesting—the conceptual boundaries that are part of the shifting terrain of identity politics around the world. Attending to the diverse expressions of binaries and asking who participates in constructing conceptual dualisms also requires close attention to the spatial and material effects of nationalist discourse. The nation as an imagined community is never confined to the imagination alone, but touches down in specific places and on specific bodies and at specific times. But places, bodies, and times are never singular. Just as all nationalisms are multidimensional, so are their spatialities. Reducing multiplicity to a binary is a political act, and one that deserves closer scrutiny from geographers and other scholars of nationalism. And in this work, “we” also need to be wary of methodological nationalism, and take care not to assume that “they,” our subjects, are the only ones who use binaries uncritically to interpret the world. The geographies of nationalism are, after all, geographies that none of us can escape as subjects of today’s state system. Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iD Natalie Koch https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4064-4620 References Adaman F and Akbulut B (2021) Erdoğ an’s three-pillared neoliberalism: Authoritarianism, populism and developmentalism. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 124: 279–289. Adams L (2010) The Spectacular State: Culture and National Identity in Uzbekistan. Durham: Duke University Press. Akhter M (2022) Dams, development, and racialised internal peripheries: Hydraulic imaginaries as hegemonic strategy in Pakistan. Antipode 54(5): 1429–1450. Allen TM (2008) A Republic in Time: Temporality and Social Imagination in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Anagnost A (1997) National past-times: Narrative, Representation, and Power in Modern China. Durham: Duke University Press. Anderson B (2010) Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography 34(6): 777–798. Anderson BR (1983) Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Anderson J (1988) Nationalist ideology and territory. In: Johnston RJ, Knight DB and Kofman E (eds) Nationalism, Self-Determination and Political Geography. New York: Croom Helm, 18–39. Anderson B and Adey P (2012) Guest editorial. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44(7): 1529–1535. Anderson B and Secor A (2022) Propositions on right-wing populism: Available, excessive, optimistic. Political Geography 96: 102608. Andrews JT and Siddiqi AA (2011) Into the Cosmos: Space Exploration and Soviet Culture. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Anson A (2020) “Master metaphor”: Environmental apocalypse and the settler states of emergency. Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities 8(1): 60–81. Antonsich M and Petrillo ER (2019) Ethno-cultural diversity and the limits of the inclusive nation. Identities 26(6): 706–724. Antonsich M and Skey M (2016) Affective nationalism: Issues of power, agency and method. Progress in Human Geography 41(6): 843–845. Avni N (2021) Between exclusionary nationalism and urban citizenship in East Jerusalem/ al-Quds. Political Geography 86: 102314. Barker K (2020) How to survive the end of the future: Preppers, pathology, and the everyday crisis of insecurity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 45(2): 483–496. Bellah RN (1967) Civil religion in America. Daedalus 96(1): 1–21. Benwell MC, Núñez A and Amigo C (2019) Flagging the nations: Citizens’ active engagements with everyday nationalism in Patagonia, Chile. Area 51(4): 719–727. Benwell MC, Núñez A and Amigo C (2021) Stitching together the nation’s fabric during the Chile uprisings: Towards an altergeopolitics of flags and everyday nationalism. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 122: 22–31. Bernazzoli RM and Flint C (2010) Embodying the garrison state? Everyday geographies of militarization in American society. Political Geography 29(3): 157–166. Berry DT (2017) Blood and Faith: Christianity in American White Nationalism. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Bescherer P and Reichle L (2022) “Why don’t you just kick out the foreigners?” Authoritarian answers to the housing question in Leipzig, East Germany. In: Koch N (ed) Spatializing Authoritarianism. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 260–278. Billig M (1995) Banal Nationalism. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Biolsi T (2005) Imagined geographies: Sovereignty, indigenous space, and American Indian struggle. American Ethnologist 32(2): 239–259. Koch Blazak R (forthcoming) Revisiting the white boys from Portland to Ukraine: Anomie and right-wing extremism. American Behavioral Scientist: 00027642221108940. Boot M (2021) Opinion: Biden’s inauguration offered what America needs: A ‘return to normalcy’ (January 20). The Washington Post [online]. Available at: https://www. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/20/bidens-inaugurationoffered-what-america-needs-return-normalcy/ (accessed 22 January 2023). Borghi M (2021) On war and memory: First World War memorials and collective memory in Britain, France and Germany. National Identities 23(5): 555–571. Bosworth K (2022) Populism and the rise of the far right: Two different problems for political ecology. Political Geography 94: 102531. Brewster C and Brewster K (2010) Representing the Nation: Sport and Spectacle in Post-Revolutionary Mexico. New York: Routledge. Brubaker R (1995) National minorities, nationalizing states, and external national homelands in the new Europe. Daedalus 124(2): 107–132. Brubaker R (1996) Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brubaker R (2004) Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Buck-Morss S (2000) Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The Passing of Mass Utopia in East and West. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cameron S (2018) The Hungry Steppe: Famine, Violence and the Making of Soviet Kazakhstan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Campbell D (1998) National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Carlson J (2021) Biden’s inaugural speech called for Americans to embrace civil religion. What does that mean? (21 January). NBC News [online]. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/ opinion/biden-s-inaugural-speech-called-americans-embracecivil-religion-what-ncna1255084 (accessed 1 November 2022). Cassegård C and Thörn H (2018) Toward a postapocalyptic environmentalism? Responses to loss and visions of the future in climate activism. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1(4): 561–578. Centeno MA and Ferraro AE (2019) State and Nation Making in Latin America and Spain: The Rise and Fall of the Developmental State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chatterjee I (2021) Alt-Right Movement: Dissecting Racism, Patriarchy and Anti-Immigrant Xenophobia. Los Angeles: Sage. Cheng Y (2009) Creating the “New Man”: From Enlightenment Ideals to Socialist Realities. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Chowdhury DR and Keane J (2021) To Kill a Democracy: India’s Passage to Despotism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Churchill W (1993) Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide, and Expropriation in Contemporary North America. Monroe: Common Courage Press. Coddington K (2020) Indigenous nationalisms as profound challenges to settler colonial regimes. In: Moisio S, Koch N, Jonas AEG, Lizotte C and Luukkonen J, (eds) Handbook on the Changing Geographies of the State: New Spaces of Geopolitics. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 107–118. 207 Conversi D (2015) War and nationalism. In: Wright JD (ed) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier, 363–370. Conversi D (2020a) Rule of the unwise: Emotions and rationality in ethnonationalism. Nations and Nationalism 26(3): 520–525. Conversi D (2020b) The ultimate challenge: Nationalism and climate change. Nationalities Papers 48(4): 625–636. Conversi D and Friis Hau M (2021) Green nationalism: Climate action and environmentalism in left nationalist parties. Environmental Politics 30(7): 1089–1110. Cowen D and Gilbert E (2008) War, Citizenship, Territory. New York: Routledge. Cunningham N (2020) The politics of place: Violence as a territorial marker. In: Storey D (ed) A Research Agenda for Territory and Territoriality. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 103–126. Dahlman C (2005) Geographies of genocide and ethnic cleansing: The lessons of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In: Flint C (ed) The Geography of War and Peace: From Death Camps to Diplomats. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 174–197. Dahlman CT (2022) Embedded authoritarianism: The construction of local ethnocracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: Koch N (ed) Spatializing Authoritarianism. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 22–42. Dahlman CT and Williams T (2010) Ethnic enclavisation and state formation in Kosovo. Geopolitics 15(2): 406–430. Dalby S (2020) Anthropocene Geopolitics: Globalization, Security, Sustainability. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Darby S (2020) Sisters in Hate: American Women on the Front Lines of White Nationalism. New York: Little, Brown and Company. DeBoom MJ (2021) Climate necropolitics: Ecological Civilization and the distributive geographies of extractive violence in the Anthropocene. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111(3): 900–912. Decker O, Brähler E, Kiess J, et al. (2022) The Dynamics of Right-Wing Extremism within German Society: Escape into Authoritarianism. New York: Routledge. Dempsey K (2022a) An Introduction to the Geopolitics of Conflict, Nationalism, and Reconciliation in Ireland. New York: Routledge. Dempsey K (2022b) Fostering grassroots civic nationalism in an ethno-nationally divided community in Northern Ireland. Geopolitics 27(1): 292–308. Devadoss C, Culcasi K, et al. (2020) Orientalist-settler colonialism: Foundations and practices of post-9/11 white nationalism in the United States. In: Moisio S, Koch N, Jonas AEG, Lizotte C and Luukkonen J (eds) Handbook on the Changing Geographies of the State: New Spaces of Geopolitics. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 119–131. Dittmer J (2013) Captain America and the Nationalist Superhero: Metaphors, Narratives, and Geopolitics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Dossa P (2021) Spatialising the far right. Social Anthropology 29(2): 346–347. Dove MR and Kammen DM (2001) Vernacular models of development: An analysis of Indonesia under the ‘‘New Order’’. World Development 29(4): 619–639. Drozdzewski D (2014) Using history in the streetscape to affirm geopolitics of memory. Political Geography 42: 66–78. Drozdzewski D, De Nardi S and Waterton E (2016) Geographies of memory, place and identity: Intersections in remembering war and conflict. Geography Compass 10(11): 447–456. 208 Edensor T (2002) National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. New York: Berg. Faria C (2014) Styling the nation: Fear and desire in the South Sudanese beauty trade. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39(2): 318–330. Ferdoush MA (2019) Symbolic spaces: Nationalism and compromise in the former border enclaves of Bangladesh and India. Area 51(4): 763–770. Ferdoush MA and Väätänen V (2022) Anticipatory state identity: Understanding the Finnish state’s approach to the Arctic. Area 54(4): 618–626. Ferretti F (2022) Indignation, civic virtue, and the right of resistance: Critical geography and antifascism in Italy. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112(7): 1833–1849. Ferry E (2016) Claiming futures. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 22(S1): 181–188. Flint C (2004) Spaces of Hate: Geographies of Discrimination and Intolerance in the U.S.A. New York: Routledge. Flint C (2005) The Geography of War and Peace: From death camps to diplomats. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forest B and Johnson J (2002) Unraveling the threads of history: Soviet-era monuments and post-Soviet national identity in Moscow. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(3): 524–547. Fuller LK (2004) National Days/National Ways: Historical, Political, and Religious Celebrations Around the World. Westport: Praeger. Geertz C (1973) After the revolution: The fate of nationalism in the new states. In: Geertz C (ed) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 234–254. Gellner E (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Getzoff JF (2020) Start-up nationalism: The rationalities of neoliberal Zionism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 38(5): 811–828. Giddens A (1987) The Nation-State and Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goalwin G (2017) Understanding the exclusionary politics of early Turkish nationalism: An ethnic boundary-making approach. Nationalities Papers 45(6): 1150–1166. Goode JP (2021) Becoming banal: Incentivizing and monopolizing the nation in post-Soviet Russia. Ethnic and Racial Studies 44(4): 679–697. Goonewardena K (2020) Populism, nationalism and Marxism in Sri Lanka: From anti-colonial struggle to authoritarian neoliberalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 102(3): 289–304. Gordon DLA and Osborne BS (2004) Constructing national identity in Canada’s capital, 1900–2000: Confederation square and the National War Memorial. Journal of Historical Geography 30(4): 618–642. Gramsci A (2008) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers. Granjou C, Walker J and Salazar JF (2017) The politics of anticipation: On knowing and governing environmental futures. Futures 92: 5–11. Grove NS (2021) ‘Welcome to Mars’: Space colonization, anticipatory authoritarianism, and the labour of hope. Globalizations 18(6): 1033–1048. Groves C (2017) Emptying the future: On the environmental politics of anticipation. Futures 92: 29–38. Human Geography 16(2) Hage G (1996) The spatial imaginary of national practices: Dwelling—domesticating /being—exterminating. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14(4): 463–485. Hagen J (2008) Parades, public space, and propaganda: The Nazi culture parades in Munich. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 90(4): 349–367. Hart G (2020a) Resurgent nationalisms & populist politics in the neoliberal age. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 102(3): 233–238. Hart G (2020b) Why did it take so long? Trump-Bannonism in a global conjunctural frame. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 102(3): 239–266. Hayes CJH (1960) Nationalism: A Religion. New York: Macmillan. Herb GH and Kaplan DH (1999) Nested Identities: Nationalism, Territory, and Scale. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Ho ELE (2021) Social geography I: Time and temporality. Progress in Human Geography 45(6): 1668–1677. Hobsbawm E (1990) Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holston J (1989) The Modernist City: An Anthropological Critique of Brasília. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Homolar A and Löfflmann G (2021) Populism and the affective politics of humiliation narratives. Global Studies Quarterly 1(1): 1–11. Hooson DJM (1994) Geography and National Identity. Cambridge: Blackwell. Horn E (2018) The Future as Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the Modern Age. New York: Columbia University Press. Hung C-T (2007) Mao’s parades: State spectacles in China in the 1950s. The China Quarterly 190: 411–431. Jeffrey C and Dyson J (2021) Geographies of the future: Prefigurative politics. Progress in Human Geography 45(4): 641–658. Johnson NC (1994) Sculpting heroic histories: Celebrating the centenary of the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19(1): 78–93. Jones O and Garde-Hansen J (2012) Geography and Memory: Explorations in Identity, Place and Becoming. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Judah T (2000) Kosovo: War and Revenge. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kaiser RJ (2002) Homeland making and the territorialization of national identity. In: Conversi D (ed) Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World: Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism. New York: Routledge, 229–247. Kalb D (2021) The neo-nationalist ascendency: Further thoughts on class, value and the return of the repressed. Social Anthropology 29(2): 316–328. Kaplan D (2018) National identity and scalar processes. In: Herb GH and Kaplan DH (eds) Scaling Identities: Nationalism and Territoriality. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 31–47. Kaplan D (2020) The five pillars of Trump’s white ethnonationalist appeal. In: Warf B (ed) Political Landscapes of Donald Trump. New York: Routledge, 144–160. Kaplan D and Herb G (2011) How geography shapes National Identities. National Identities 13(4): 349–360. Kastrissianakis K, Smaira D and Staeheli L (2021) “Synthesis is not the same thing as uniformity”: The cosmopolitics of youth citizenship in Lebanon. Geopolitics 26(5): 1331–1352. Koch Kecmanović D (2002) Ethnic Times: Exploring Ethnonationalism in the Former Yugoslavia. Westport: Praeger. Kedourie E (1961) Nationalism. London: Hutchinson University Library. Kellerman A (1989) Time, Space, and Society: Geographical Societal Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kemper S (1993) The nation consumed: Buying and believing in Sri Lanka. Public Culture 5(3): 377–393. Kennedy J and van Ginderachter M (2022) The use of binaries in nationalism studies. National Identities 24(5): 453–460. Khan R (2022) Between independence and autonomy: The changing landscape of ethno-nationalist movements in Pakistan. Nationalities Papers 50(4): 643–660. Knight D (1982) Identity and territory: Geographical perspectives on nationalism and regionalism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 72(4): 514–531. Koch N (2013) Sport and soft authoritarian nation-building. Political Geography 32(0): 42–51. Koch N (2014) “Building glass refrigerators in the desert”: Discourses of urban sustainability and nation building in Qatar. Urban Geography 35(8): 1118–1139. Koch N (2015) Gulf nationalism and the geopolitics of constructing falconry as a ‘heritage sport’. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 15(3): 522–539. Koch N (2016) Is nationalism just for nationals? Civic nationalism for noncitizens and celebrating National Day in Qatar and the UAE. Political Geography 54: 43–53. Koch N (2017) Orientalizing authoritarianism: Narrating US exceptionalism in popular reactions to the Trump election and presidency. Political Geography 58: 145–147. Koch N (2018) The Geopolitics of Spectacle: Space, Synecdoche, and the New Capitals of Asia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Koch N (2019) Post-triumphalist geopolitics: Liberal selves, authoritarian others. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 18(4): 909–924. Koch N (2020a) Methodological nationalism. In: Kobayashi A (ed) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd Edition9. Oxford: Elsevier, 245–248. Koch N (2020b) The corporate production of nationalism. Antipode 52(1): 185–205. Koch N (2022) Greening oil money: The geopolitics of energy finance going green. Energy Research & Social Science 93: 102833. Koch N (forthcoming) Sustainability spectacle and ‘post-oil’ greening initiatives. Environmental Politics: 1–24.. Koch N and Vora N (2020) Islamophobia and the uneven legal geographies of ethnonationalism. Political Geography 83: 102187. Kolstø Pl and Blakkisrud H (2016) The New Russian Nationalism: Imperialism, Ethnicity and Authoritarianism 2000-15. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kong L and Yeoh BSA (1997) The construction of national identity through the production of ritual and spectacle: An analysis of National Day parades in Singapore. Political Geography 16(3): 213–239. Kosasa E (2000) Ideological images: U.S. Nationalism in Japanese settler photographs. Amerasia Journal 26(2): 66–91. Kotkin S (1995) Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization. Berkeley: University of California Press. 209 Kurniawan JH and Kundurpi A (2019) Integrating human geography into futures studies: Reconstructing and reimagining the future of space. Geography Compass 13(6): e12443. Kuzio T (2022) Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War: Autocracy-Orthodoxy-Nationality. New York: Routledge. Laszczkowski M (2016) “City of the Future”: Built Space, Modernity, and Change in Astana. New York: Berghahn. Law J (1994) Organizing modernity. Cambridge: Blackwell. Lenntorp B (1999) Time-geography – at the end of its beginning. GeoJournal 48(3): 155–158. Li TM (2007) The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham: Duke University Press. Lindsay BC (2012) Murder State: California’s Native American Genocide, 1846-1873. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Luger J (2022) Celebrations, exaltations and alpha lands: Everyday geographies of the far-right. Political Geography 96: 102604. Mally L (1990) Culture of the Future: The Proletkult Movement in Revolutionary Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Markwick RD (2008) “A sacred duty”: Red Army women veterans remembering the Great Fatherland War, 1941-1945. Australian Journal of Politics & History 54(3): 403–420. Marshall D (2004) Making sense of remembrance. Social & Cultural Geography 5(1): 37–54. Marshall DJ and Staeheli LA (2021) Cosmopolitan geopolitics. Geopolitics 26(5): 1273–1285. May J and Thrift N (2001) TimeSpace: Geographies of Temporality. New York: Routledge. Mayer T (2000) Gender ironies of nationalism: Sexing the nation. New York: Routledge. McDowell S (2008) Commemorating dead “men”: Gendering the past and present in post-conflict Northern Ireland. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 15(4): 335–354. McDowell S (2022) “Informers will be executed”: Unpacking dissident republican spatial practices in Derry/Londonderry. In: Koch N (ed) Spatializing Authoritarianism. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 43–60. Merriman P (2012) Human geography without time-space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37(1): 13–27. Methmann C and Rothe D (2012) Politics for the day after tomorrow: The logic of apocalypse in global climate politics. Security Dialogue 43(4): 323–344. Militz E (2016) Public events and nation-building in Azerbaijan. In: Isaacs R and Polese A (eds) Nation Building and Identity in the Post-Soviet Space: New Tools and Approaches. New York: Routledge, 176–194. Militz E and Schurr C (2016) Affective nationalism: Banalities of belonging in Azerbaijan. Political Geography 54: 54–63. Mitchell T (1991) The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics. The American Political Science Review 85(1): 77–96. Molnár V (2016) Civil society, radicalism and the rediscovery of mythic nationalism. Nations and Nationalism 22(1): 165–185. Mulej O (2022) Territorial and non-territorial aspects in the autonomist proposals of the Sudeten German Party, 1937–38. Nationalities Papers 50(5): 942–962. Mullis D and Miggelbrink J (2022) Lokal extrem Rechts: Analysen alltäglicher Vergesellschaftungen. Bielefeld: transcript. 210 Murphy AB (1990) Historical justifications for territorial claims. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80(4): 531–548. Muzaini H and Yeoh BSA (2005) War landscapes as ‘battlefields’ of collective memories: Reading the reflections at Bukit Chandu, Singapore. cultural Geographies 12(3): 345–365. Myadar O (2017) The rebirth of Chinggis Khaan: State appropriation of Chinggis Khaan in post-socialist Mongolia. Nationalities Papers 45(5): 840–855. Nagel C and Grove K (2021) Virtual forum introduction: Populist nationalisms and new geographies of exclusion. Political Geography 89: 102429. Olds K and Yeung H (2004) Pathways to global city formation: A view from the developmental city-state of Singapore. Review of International Political Economy 11(3): 489–521. O’Loughlin J and Kolossov V (2002) Still not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier: The geopolitics of the Kosovo war 1999. Political Geography 21(5): 573–599. Ó Tuathail G (1996) An anti-geopolitical eye: Maggie O’Kane in Bosnia, 1992-3. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 3(2): 171–185. Ó Tuathail G and Dahlman C (2004) The clash of governmentalities: Displacement and return in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In: Larner W and Walters W (eds) Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces. New York: Routledge, 136–154. Paasi A (1996) Territories, Boundaries, and Consciousness: The Changing Geographies of the Finnish-Russian Boundary. New York: J. Wiley & Sons. Paasi A (2016) Dancing on the graves: Independence, hot/banal nationalism and the mobilization of memory. Political Geography 54: 21–31. Paasi A (2020) Nation, territory, memory: Making state-space meaningful. In: Storey D (ed) A Research Agenda for Territory and Territoriality. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 61–82. Pavković A (1997) The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia: Nationalism in a Multinational State. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Podeh E (2011) The Politics of National Celebrations in the Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Podeh E (2022) Anthems in the Arab world: A hybrid national symbol. Nations and Nationalism 28(4): 1379–1394. Ridanpää J (2022) ‘Carbon footprint nationalism’: Re-conceptualizing Finnish nationalism and national pride through climate change discourse. National Identities 24(4): 429–446. Rohava M (2020) The politics of state celebrations in Belarus. Nations and Nationalism 26(4): 883–901. Rossol N (2010) Performing the nation: Sports, spectacles, and aesthetics in Germany, 1926–1936. Central European History 43(4): 616–638. Ryser RC (2012) Indigenous Nations and Modern States: The Political Emergence of Nations Challenging State Power. New York: Routledge. Scott JC (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Shoshan N (2016) The Management of Hate: Nation, Affect, and the Governance of Right-Wing Extremism in Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Siddiqi A (2010) Competing technologies, national(ist) narratives, and universal claims: Toward a global history of space exploration. Technology and Culture 51(2): 425–443. Human Geography 16(2) Singh P (2022) How exclusionary nationalism has made the world socially sicker from COVID-19. Nationalities Papers 50(1): 104–117. Sinha S (2021) ‘Strong leaders’, authoritarian populism and Indian developmentalism: The Modi moment in historical context. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 124: 320–333. Skey M (2011) National Belonging and Everyday Life: The Significance of Nationhood in an Uncertain World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith AD (1999) Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith AD (2000) The Nation in History: Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism. Hanover: University Press of New England. Smith AD (2002) When is a nation. Geopolitics 7(2): 5–32. Sneddon C (2015) Concrete Revolution: Large Dams, Cold War Geopolitics, and the US Bureau of Reclamation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Solomon J, Kaplan D and Hancock L (2021) Expressions of American white ethnonationalism in support for “Blue Lives Matter”. Geopolitics 26(3): 946–966. Staeheli LA and Hammett D (2013) ‘For the future of the nation’: Citizenship, nation, and education in South Africa. Political Geography 32: 32–41. Stewart KL (2021) Building the nation through celebrating the nation: A comparison of holidays in Russia’s regions. Europe-Asia Studies 73(10): 1876–1907. Stites R (1989) Revolutionary dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press. Stock M (2020) Geographizität des Rechts – ein Missing Link in der geographischen Theoriebildung? Geographica Helvetica 75(4): 349–361. Storey D (2001) Territory: The claiming of space. New York: Prentice Hall. Swyngedouw E (2010) Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society 27(2-3): 213–232. Swyngedouw E (2013) Apocalypse now! Fear and doomsday pleasures. Capitalism Nature Socialism 24(1): 9–18. Tamm M (2013) In search of lost time: Memory politics in Estonia, 1991–2011. Nationalities Papers 41(4): 651–674. Thiollet H and Assaf L (2021a) Cosmopolitanism in exclusionary contexts. Population, Space and Place 27(1): e2358. Thiollet H, Assaf L (2021b) Migrant cosmopolitanism in Emirati and Saudi cities: Practices and belonging in exclusionary contexts. In: Lejeune C, Pagès-El Karoui D, Schmoll C, et al. (eds) Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World. Cham: Springer, 151–165. Till KE (1999) Staging the past: Landscape designs, cultural identity and Erinnerungspolitik at Berlin’s Neue Wache. Ecumene 6(3): 251–283. Toal G and Dahlman C (2011) Bosnia Remade: Ethnic Cleansing and its Reversal. New York: Oxford University Press. Todorova M (1997) Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University Press. Tomlinson A and Young C (2006) National Identity and Global Sports Events: Culture, Politics, and Spectacle in the Olympics and the Football World Cup. Albany: State University of New York Press. 211 Koch Viala-Gaudefroy J (2021) Joe Biden’s inaugural speech: a return to normalcy? (27 January). The Conversation [online]. Available at: https://theconversation.com/joe-bidens-inaugural-speech-areturn-to-normalcy-154124 (accessed 22 January 2023). Vitolo-Haddad CV (2019) The blood of patriots: Symbolic violence and “the West”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 49(3): 280–296. Webster G (2011) American Nationalism, the flag, and the invasion of Iraq. Geographical Review 101(1): 1–18. Wedeen L (1999) Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. White L (2017) Commercial Nationalism and Tourism: Selling the National Story. Buffalo: Channel View. White L and Frew E (2019) Australia Celebrates: An exploration of Australia day festivals and national identity. In: Mair J (ed) The Routledge Handbook of Festivals. New York: Routledge, 323–331. Williams CH and Smith A (1983) The national construction of social space. Progress in Human Geography 7(4): 502–518. Wolfe P (2006) Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research 8(4): 387–409. Wondreys J and Mudde C (2022) Victims of the pandemic? European far-right parties and COVID-19. Nationalities Papers 50(1): 86–103. Woo-Cumings M (1999) The Developmental State. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Woodward R (2000) Warrior heroes and little green men: Soldiers, military training and the construction of rural masculinities. Rural Sociology 65(4): 640–657. Yanik L (2017) Of celebrities and landmarks: Space, state and the making of “cosmopolitan” Turkey. Geopolitics 22(1): 176–203. Yarwood R, Tyrrell N and Kelly C (2021) Children, military families and soldier citizenship. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 126: 253–262. Yiftachel O and Rokem J (2021) Polarizations, exclusionary neonationalisms and the city. Political Geography 86: 102329. Author Biography Natalie Koch is a political geographer, whose research focuses on nationalism, identity politics, authoritarianism, geopolitics, and state power, primarily in the Arabian Peninsula. Her latest book, Arid Empire: The Entangled Fates of Arizona and Arabia, was published with Verso in January 2023.