Historically geopolitics has been understood as an aid to the ‘art of statecraft’ and as a science that gives advice to ‘the prince’. Critical interventions by Agnew, Ruggie, and Rosenberg shackled the instrumental reasoning underpinning classical geopolitics and engaged in a reevaluation of its state centric ontology. By means of phasing in a new reading of sovereignty into the discourse the paper problematizes the supposedly fixed space-authority-geography triad. Departing from Hardt & Negri’s postmodern interpretation of sovereignty it is asked how our notion of the geopolitical transforms if one removes the binary oppositions upon which the modern, Manichean concept of sovereignty rests. Can we think geopolitically without referring to fixed spaces and places? In order to theorize such ‘porous sovereignties’ the paper mobilizes the works of P.J Proudhon and G. Landauer and suggests that an anarchist analysis of power-clusters is suited best for comprehending the geopolitical dynamics of the multitude.
