Territoriality

10 Key excerpts on "Territoriality"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Political Geography

  Territory, State and Society

  • Kevin R. Cox(Author)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  Above all, political geography focuses on the twin ideas of territory and Territoriality. Territory and Territoriality are the defining concepts of political geography in that they bring together the ideas of power and space: territories as spaces that are defended, contested, claimed against the claims of others; in short, through Territoriality. Territory and Territoriality mutually presuppose one another. There can’t be one without the other. Territoriality is activity: the activity of defending, controlling, excluding, including; territory is the area whose content one seeks to control in these ways. 1 But again, that only takes us so far. To understand territory and territorial-ity as opposed to describing what they are about, we need understandings of space relations and politics. As geographic concepts territory and territorial-ity have their roots, their conditions, in other spatial practices; in particular those relating to movement and those that have to do with the embedding of people and their activities in particular places – ideas that are fundamental to contemporary human geography. Likewise, in order to understand the polit-ical in political geography we need to come to terms with the central concept 1 Consider in this regard the definitions given by The Dictionary of Human Geography (1986). Territory: “A general term used to describe areas of land or sea over which states and other political entities claim to exercise some form of control” (p. 483); Territoriality: “The attempt by an individual or group to influence or establish control over a clearly demarcated territory” (p. 482). of modern political science, the state. The state is itself an expression of terri-torial power: it has an area over which it claims jurisdiction, it has boundaries and it has powers to influence movement and what goes on in any part of its jurisdiction.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Cultural Sustainability and Regional Development

  Theories and practices of territorialisation

  • Joost Dessein, Elena Battaglini, Lummina Horlings(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Research on human Territoriality consolidated during the 1960s when social science scholars began to look at ethology with more interest. They realised that the vast knowledge about animal behaviour as related to space could yield promising results when applied to humans. In this scientific milieu, a whole research programme emerged and firmly positioned itself in the fields of sociology and psychology. Its premises could be summed up by a definition of Territoriality that revolved around demarcation (constructing and communicating territories through marking behaviours) and defence of space (maintaining and restoring territories). Territoriality was then conceived as ‘the act of laying claim to and defending a territory’ (Hall, 1959: 146). It involves ‘the mutually exclusive use of areas and objects by persons and groups’ (Altman, 1975: 106) by means of ‘repulsion through overt defense or some form of communication’ (Dyson-Hudson and Smith, 1978: 22). The scientific discourse on Territoriality has further been explored in the work of Sack (1986) and Brown (1987) and via classic reviews (Lyman and Scott, 1967; Altman, 1970).

  This way of investigating generated a large corpus of knowledge that has helped us understand our relationship with space; however, by emphasising the control of resources via the demarcation and defence of space, this approach ‘has distorted the picture of human territorial functioning by suggesting that territories become important only when they are violated or threatened’ (Brown, 1987: 173).

  Human Territoriality can be a vehicle for much more subtle processes than animal Territoriality, and we must go beyond this approach, imbued as it is with an outdated notion of either rationality or instinctiveness as the main avenues to the understanding of human behaviour. By breaking free from this ethological heritage, we will be able to appreciate how territories offer a great variety of opportunity for social organisation and we will come to a much broader understanding of how we relate to space and what kind of opportunities space affords us.

  What we do to space; what space does to us

  The current discourse on human Territoriality also revolves around the much debated issue of the hegemony of nature versus culture; sometimes this dispute reaches the impasse of the unsolvable dilemma of the subject or object supremacy. The relationship between society and the environment is characterised by intense dialectics where neither society nor the environment prevails: space is simultaneously shaped by society, but is also capable of shaping society. The environment is continuously modified, planned and designed by society but, at the same time, the environment defines the conditions for social action and it thus helps to define society itself. This dialectic is expressed by the conceptual pair of ‘place-making’, i.e. the direction of the relationship where it is society that defines space (Prior, 1988; Baldry, 1999) and ‘emplacement’, i.e. the direction of the relationship where it is space that defines the possibility for social behaviour (Lefebvre, 1974) (see Figure 6.1

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  From Hierarchy to Anarchy

  Territory and Politics before Westphalia

  • J. Larkins(Author)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  Territoriality, for Sack, is a geographical strategy that controls people and 36 ● From Hierarchy to Anarchy things by controlling the area they are located within. Territoriality is “the means by which space and society are interrelated. Territoriality’s changing functions help us to understand the historical relationship between society, space and time.” 1 The designation of an area as a territory involves more that simply circumscribing things in space or on a map. Territoriality is a social practice through which an individual or group aims to “affect, influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships, by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic area.” 2 A terri- tory is a place that needs to be maintained through constant vigilance and whose boundaries must be permanently policed. Territoriality produces three effects: classification by area; the communication of the limits of that area by physical or verbal boundary markers; and control over access to the area and things in it. As a social practice, Territoriality has different historical meanings depending on the extent to which societies maintain different degrees of access to people, things, and relationships. It is a form of power that is not limited to the political sphere but is exercised in every arena in which humans interact in space: from a parent restricting a child’s access to certain parts of the kitchen, to the layout of desks in offices, or to the zoning strategies of city planning. Nevertheless, the most effec- tive instrument of territorialization is the modern state which is able to control a society in which different classes pursue distinctive economic activities abstracted from place. The state itself is an abstracted form of power and in order for it to appear “more accessible, visible or ‘real’ ” it is “endowed with the most basic attribute of objects—location and extension in space. In civilisation, the political power of the state is areal or territorial.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Territory, Globalization and International Relations

  The Cartographic Reality of Space

  • J. Strandsbjerg(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  And to understand this, we must not only think in terms of territorializing the state and sovereignty but investigate a broader notion of spatial change that includes a notion of globalization preceding or co-occurring with the formation of territorial states. Focusing on the relationship, then, between territory and the state, it is useful to be reminded of Jean Gottmann’s seminal work The Significance of Territory, where ‘territory appears as a material, spatial notion establishing essential links between politics, people, and the natural setting’ (1973: ix). In his view, territory is significant ‘as the unit in the political organization of space that defines, at least for a time, the relationships between the community and its habitat on one hand, and between the community and its neighbors on the other’ (Gottmann 1973: ix). The link between territory and sovereignty is essential but also one that is changing over time as ‘the basis for the enforcement of the law subtly shifted from allegiance to a personal sovereign toward controls exercised by the sovereign power in geographical space. The partitioning of space thus acquired an increasing significance, and ter- ritorial sovereignty became an essential expression of the law coinciding with effective jurisdiction’ (Gottmann 1973: 4). The significance of ter- ritory, then, lies in the spatialization of state sovereignty that served as a basis for the conceptualization of international politics as something taking place between spatially differentiated but similar (in that they are sovereign) entities. This has been the self-understanding of the IR disci- pline, where the peace treaties of Westphalia are seen as the foundation of modern IR (Walker 1993). And it is important to recognize this while at the same time remembering that territory has much wider meaning and the understanding of political space should not be limited to simply territory.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment

  • Amos Rapoport(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  For this part of the study, I am especially indebted to Adam Kendon, Norman Ashcraft, Ron Goodrich, Clarence Robins, and Kenneth GospodinofF. The research was funded by the State of New York, Bronx State Hospital, NIMH grant MH 15977-05, and the Van Ameringon Foundation. Editorial services were provided by Ann Burch. 178 ALBERT Ε. SCHEFLEN The purpose of this paper is to point out selectively these commonali-ties of form. We will first define the construct of territory in operational terms and then proceed to describe the appearance of certain replications of these forms at higher levels of organization—from the small group, the room, to the city. Our focus is on British-American territories, but we will refer to their predecessors in Western culture where this is relevant. INTRODUCTION: CONCEPTS OF A SCIENCE OF Territoriality A territory can be defined as a quantum of space which is marked off for a time by the behavior of some social unit. In this definition, several logical types of phenomena are countenanced; specifically, that bound-aries exist within a circumscribed area in both space and time. Organisms defend and use a territory while engaging in certain kinds of behavior. Because a system of relationship obtains among the holders of a territory, a social unit is formed. In order to describe a terriory in this sense, we must study each of these logical types of phenomena and find a means of view-ing them in an integrative way. The Features of a Territory Boundary behavior is an important construct of territory. People build concrete, discernable markers around their property, i.e. walls and fences. The boundaries of a territory are not, however, necessarily permanent or physical in nature. The idea of boundary is relative in several ways (Mc Bride i.p.). As we have indicated, boundaries are temporal as well as spatial. They exist in time. Whether the duration of that time be an encounter, a season, or centuries, they are, in any event, changed and moved.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Territory

  A Short Introduction

  • David Delaney(Author)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  On the basis of these two considerations there was established [note the passive voice] a territory embracing the settled Arab region of the Tigris–Euphrates plain, together with adjacent but dissimilar regions of mountain and desert tribes, the whole to be developed as a separate Arab state. (1950[1969], 40) Rather presciently he added, ‘‘One would need to determine whether the Iraqis have since evolved a truly native concept’’ (p. 40). Other mid-century geographers engaged in ‘‘boundary studies.’’ Case studies were produced concerning boundary disputes, boundary changes, and other territorial revisions such as annexation and partition. In add-ition, though a decidedly minor theme, some geographers began to ana-lyze ‘‘internal’’ boundaries such as those involving states of the United States, metropolitan areas, and local governments as well as the processes associated with political redistricting. These were usually not, however, theorized in terms of territory. Before the 1970s territory as treated by human geographers was almost exclusively the domain of political geographers who were, in turn, almost exclusively concerned with the nation-state. As late as 1973, the eminent geographer Jean Gottmann could write a book entitled The Significance of Territory that was almost exclusively concerned with the history of statist territory in western Europe, and which attempted to account for its evolution in terms of tensions between ‘‘security versus opportunity’’ and ‘‘liberty versus equality.’’ But by then, as we will see 42 DISCIPLINING AND UNDISCIPLINING TERRITORY later in this chapter, the discipline of human geography had begun to change. Anthropology Unlike IR and political geography, territory has not been so central a theme in traditional anthropology.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Biblical Ideas of Nationality, Ancient and Modern

  • Steven Grosby(Author)
  • 2002(Publication Date)
  • Eisenbrauns

    (Publisher)

  Thus, the phe- nomenon of Territoriality is not to be considered primarily within the context of such behavioristic categories as the “range” or the “habitat.” In this regard, Hans Gadamer (1988: 402) was entirely correct when he ob- served that to have a “world,” in this case, a territory, is to have an atti- tude towards it. However, as has already been suggested, one cannot be content merely to insist that what is significant to the individual and to the collectivity necessarily implies the existence of an attitude which shares in the meaning of the particular structure. What is the nature of the “attitude” involved in Territoriality such that millions of human be- ings in the twentieth century have sacrificed and are willing to sacrifice their lives for their “own” land, their territory? It appears that in histori- cally diverse situations, man has believed that his own life is dependent upon the continued existence of the territorial sovereignty of “his” coun- try. Once again, the puzzle of Territoriality is the attribution of this pri- mordial, life-giving, and life-sustaining significance to an environment which is considerably more extensive than that recognized by the rela- tively more immediate actions of the family. As a consequence of the various, historically conditioned, objective achievements of the mind which are constitutive of a territory and its boundaries, it has been noted that Territoriality is a spatial structure of temporal depth. It has also been noted that the individual participates in the image of this temporally deep, that is historically produced and tradition-bearing structure. There is a phenomenological vagueness to this use of the term “partic- ipation.” The spatial structure of a territory and the objective image of that structure must not be viewed as being exclusively external to the in- dividual who participates in that structure.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  A Companion to Political Geography

  • John A. Agnew, Katharyne Mitchell, Gerard Toal, John A. Agnew, Katharyne Mitchell, Gerard Toal(Authors)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  Often supporting traditional community and cultural identities, environmental values, and people's rights to land and old terri-tories, these movements struggle to affect legislation and the forms of territorial governance that have been established by the hegemonic groups in the society. In TERRITORY 119 many cases these activities and interests cross existing state borders ± often by using modern information technology. This border-crossing also characterizes social movements that bring together, for example, workers, poor people, women, and environmentalists, and resist the uncritical acceptance of neo-liberal attitudes and practices behind the current trends in globalization. Future democratic societies will inevitably require increasing openness and ``cross-ings'' of cultural, symbolic, legal, and physical boundaries between territories at a variety of spatial scales, from the local to the global. Researchers, for their part, should be ready to deconstruct the constitutive, at times mystified, elements of territory, Territoriality, boundaries, and identity narratives. It is obvious that terri-toriality is to an increasing degree turning into a continuum of practices and discourses of territorialities which may be, to some extent, overlapping and conflict-ing. They may be linked or networked partly with the past, partly with the present, and partly with a utopian imaginary of the future forms of Territoriality. The examples discussed in this chapter clearly suggest that new territories and territori-alities may supercede the established political categories and identities at various spatial scales, and yet partly be linked with them. All this will provide an interesting challenge for the geographic imagination of political geographers and others dealing with the spatialities of power. BIBLIOGRAPHY Agnew, J. 1994. The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy , 1(1), 53±80.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction

  • Adam Kendon, Richard M. Harris, Mary R. Key, Adam Kendon, Richard M. Harris, Mary R. Key(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  At the other extreme, where individuals may meet on equally unfamiliar ground, their relative dominance in any resource competition will be quite unaffected by the location, and the only spatial factor of relevance will be how large their individual spaces are. This is the limiting case, or a totally non-territorial situation. Advantages of the definitions suggested above are that they can 362 IAN VINE adequately describe all the varieties of spatial dependency of social interaction and that they recognize the intimate links between spacing and relative social ranks with respect to particular resource acquisition or activities; but they also allow that the degrees of overt aggression involved in encounters can depend substantially on other factors. The agonistic behavior involved in maintaining separation or a boundary can thus be recognized as varying from attack, through aggressive threat, neutral confrontation, and defensive threat, to avoidance or flight. Territoriality, in the sense of dominance being dependent to some degree on familiarity with the location of an encounter, may well be the norm among vertebrates. In this sense, inasmuch as the size of individual space may be similarly affected, maintenance of it may also be included within Territoriality, especially if location also influences whether intrusions on individual space elicit avoidance or aggression. The definitions also acknowledge that holders of anything less than a true territory may on occasion allow even a strange individual to enter the area providing that appropriate submissive or appeasement rituals are followed. For holders of true territories these rituals may also be required from those (such as a mate) for whom access is regu-larly permitted; they may also be important in ensuring that individual space is kept small toward certain individuals or classes of individuals.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Space Meets Status

  Designing Workplace Performance

  • Jacqueline Vischer(Author)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Planners and social theorists writing in the last century were almost unanimous in connecting the notion of home with a sense of belonging to the community. As early as 1948, a sociologist described neighborhood as a ‘territorial group, the members of which meet on common ground within their own area for primary social contacts’. 44 Many social theorists of the period assumed that if people were put in the same place and shared the same amenities, they would develop ‘locality consciousness’: they would form a community. The territorial contiguity argument asserts that geographical proximity is a powerful force for community development and social solidarity. In business today, the preferred term is ‘co-location’, and it is often invoked to counter traditional organizational (and geographical) silos. The counter-argument that sparked the debate questions whether physical environment alone can have such determining effects on behavior: sharing a place may not be a sufficient condition for the development of a sense of community, or team. The question emerging from the debate is the following: is Territoriality a social need that develops in an individual as a result of membership in a social group and of having a role in that social group? Or is Territoriality a basic need for ‘place’ that is expressed through social roles and behavior? As some companies have discovered, co-locating individuals and teams at work is not sufficient to ensure that they ‘jell’. The circumstances in which co-located workers become territorial are a function of social, cultural and management factors, as well as of their physical environment. Moreover, Territoriality is not uniquely a prerogative of the individual worker but is also a strong force in teamwork and group membership. It is this aspect of Territoriality that may be most useful to organizations, as work becomes more cooperative and project-based

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book