Abstract

The recent declaration of the “end of geography” and the so-called “de-territorialization of political space”, which results from a combination of revolutionised information technology and a globalized market economy, as well as the free movement of capital beyond borders raises the question of whether scientific enthusiasm can, at times, overshadow scientific prudence. In the face of such possibilities, an examination of variations in the geographical meaning and spatial applications of terms such as “frontier,” “boundary,” and “border,” as well as their fundamental differences, both in terms of meaning and application, with the concept of “barriers” might shed light on this problem. Following Jean Gottmann’s concepts of “iconography” and “circulation,” - there can be little doubt that, for as long as human is concerned about his identity -defined geographically-  and for as long as man remains preoccupied simultaneously with the notion of independence within a politically organized space, this independence can only be understood within the context of a politically circumscribed space. The revolutionary expansion of information technology together with the globalization of the world economy and the free movement of capital has helped to mitigate difficulties in communication, both in terms of time and space. Indeed, this has happened to the extent that there is sometimes confusion between what is actual and what is virtual. Despite this, there is little doubt that as long as human is concerned with preservation of his independence from all others within his own portion of space, borders will remain in place to manifest his never ending drive for being different from all others and proud of his own particular features.  

Key words: State, space, border, boundary, geography, politics, Gottmann, Iran, Persia.