ABSTRACT
In due consequence of Chapter 5, this chapter criticises the tendency of inward-looking in conventional Area Studies. Pointing to the political dimension of demarcating areas for scholarly analysis, it argues that Area Studies would gain in quality if tunnel vision were put aside for the sake of acknowledging hitherto neglected geographies, including emotional ones. The chapter wraps up the findings of Part II and discusses issues of hegemonic knowledge production. It argues that the exercise of re-scaling the arrangement of conventional Area Studies requires the recognition of other than the usual area units. Doing so is also a means to expound the political Weltanschauung that forms the ontological fundament for the arrangement of modern Area Studies.
