On territory, the nation-state and the crisis of the hyphen (original) (raw)
Related papers
Syllabus: Territoriality and territory in geographic thought (2016)
This seminar focuses on two related concepts—territoriality and territory—that occupy a central place in human geographic thought. We will examine classic theories of territoriality/territory as well as recent conceptual debates. The terms are traditionally most associated with the fields of identity, nationalism and state sovereignty. While we will cover these topics, the course will also focus on more recent research concerned with social movements, power, and environmental politics. The aim of the course is to provide a comprehensive overview of the lineage and development of territoriality/territory in the discipline as well as the potential uses to which the concepts may be put work in geographic research. Participants should note that this is a reading-intensive course, with an average of 5-7 theoretical and empirical readings assigned each week.
The roles and future of bounded territories have become important themes in research. Scholars have in particular theorized new forms of spatialities that have emerged along with the geopolitical and geo‐economic upheavals that followed the Cold War. Many scholars, dazzled by the supposed power of globalization and the related rise of a world characterized by ‘flows’ and networks, have suggested that we are moving towards a ‘borderless world’ and a retreat of the nation‐state. At the same time, partly as a reaction to globalization and partly as a response to emerging regionalism and ethno‐regionalist movements, a number of states have set in motion a process of re‐scaling in which they have devolved part of their power in governance to supra‐state and sub‐state regions. Concomitantly, new, increasingly technical forms of governance have been taken into use to control state territories. This paper will first scrutinize how academic scholars have by tradition interpreted and theorized the roles of ‘boundedness’, borders and territoriality. Some new conceptual perspectives will then be developed in order to understand the persistence of bounded territorial spaces. It will suggest that, in spite of the increasing interactions and networks, the state is still a crucial organizer of territorial spaces and creator of meaning for them, even though these spaces are becoming increasingly porous. The paper looks at how such meaning‐making occurs in spatial socialization and in the governmental practices that perpetually aim at making territory calculable. It suggests that, instead of being mere neutral lines, borders are important institutions and ideological symbols that are used by various bodies and institutions in the perpetual process of reproducing territorial power.
Antonsich, M., Territory and territoriality, in the Association of American Geographers, The International Encyclopedia of Geography, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (forthcoming)
Territory and territoriality are generally regarded as key concepts in political geography. While Anglophone geographers have privileged a rather politico-institutional understanding, closely related to the state and the notion of sovereignty, Francophone geographers have privileged a social and semiotic approach, which emphasizes the role people play in the production of territories. After having been dismissed as a relic of the past in an age of flows and networks and obfuscated by the hegemonic role place has played in geography, territory seems to have attracted new interest and gained momentum in the discipline in the last few years.
New Frontiers: Territory, Social Spaces, and the State
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
"…territory is a compromise between a mythical aspect and a rational or pragmatic one. It is three things: a piece of land, seen as a sacred heritage; a seat of power; and a functional space. It encompasses the dimensions of identity (…)… of authority (the state as an instrument of political, legal, police and military control over a population defined by its residence); and of administrative bureaucratic or economic efficiency in the management of social mechanisms, particularly of interdependence….The strength of the national territorial state depends upon the combination of these three dimensions." (Hassner, 1997, p. 57)
Political Territories in a Global Era
Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 2011
Research problem What do states have in common with municipalities, the Catholic Church, criminal MC gangs, virtual communities, nomadic peoples, and corporate empires? My contention is that a degree of autonomy within some form of territory is a common goal for such, in other respects, very different entities. I also argue that in a globalized world, alternative forms of territories are emerging and gaining in significance, a development largely overlooked by the literature on globalization as well as by traditional state-centric perspectives. Perspectives on the significance of political territories are highly polarized, which has implied a lack of problematization (Brenner & Elden 2010). In a traditional perspective influenced by (neo)realism, it is held that the territorial dimension of politics is crucial for autonomy and political power (Mearsheimer 2001), but this reflects postulation rather than problematization. From this perspective, globalization and transnational networks are not considered to be sufficiently challenging to call for theoretical and conceptual revision. State territory is believed to be largely unaffected by globalization, and is considered to continue to be the basic units of the international system. Theories of globalization and transnational networks, on the other hand, hold 1 Projektet bedrivs vid Utrikespolitiska institutet. Johan Eriksson är även verksam vid Södertörns högskola.
Territory, territorialisation, territoriality: Problems of definition and historical interpretation
Plurimondi an International Forum For Research and Debate on Human Settlements, 2013
Territory, territorialisation and territoriality are polysemic concepts. Efforts to come up with a shared notion have been numerous, and also quite effective. But the etymology of the Latin word territorium had actually a plurality of meanings. In the Middle Ages the concept was mainly associated to the notion of Jurisdiction, and this link implied that for medieval jurists it became quite normal to imagine that a single area could be interested not only by many jurisdictions, but also by many territories and therefore different forms of territoriality. In more recent times, this idea have been lost in favor of a statecentric notion, according to which the concept of territory would be considered primarily as the spatial projection of modern states and the salient features of territoriality should therefore be continuity, homogeneity, and isotropism. This 'traditional notion of territory' seems to still enjoy some luck with many disciplines, and also with the historians. But actually the notion poses several problems, and so it had better to be abandoned to return to imagine-as suggested also by the ethological, biological, and ethno-anthropological studiesdifferent possible forms of territoriality and many possible forms of territorialisation.