The Dictionary of Human Geography

Suggested reading
Cosgrove (2001); Woodward (2006).

glocalization This awkward adversary of
spell-check programs globally has been used
in three quite different ways in debates over
globalization. First, it has proved useful
for critics of what Gillian Hart calls the
‘impact model’ of global economic integration
(Hart, 2003). Challenging the idea of global
capitalismsimply entering and transforming
local regions, geographers such as Erik
Swyngedouw have thus invoked glocalization
to describe the dialecticallocal–global re-
lationsthrough which local regions mediate
and change global processes even as they
are remade and rescaled themselves
(Swyngedouw, 2001, 2004a, 2006). Second,
social theorists who are interested in the
development of contemporary cultural hyb-
rids refer to glocalization as a way of exam-
ining syncretic mixes and other forms of
so-called heterogenization that are obscured
by visions of global cultural homogenization
(Featherstone, 1995; see Hybridity). And
third, the most banal appeals to glocalization
are from business strategists who talk about
the need to ‘glocalize’ big brands so that they
can be better targeted at particular local mar-
kets (e.g. vegetarian Big Macs in India). ms

governable space Geographical space
shaped and organized in ways that make it
amenable to technologies of government.
The term was used by Rose (1999c) in his
development and extension of Foucault’s
ideas about government andgovernmental-
ity. Rose argues that ‘governing does not just
act on a pre-existing thought world with its
natural divisions’; rather, ‘to govern is to cut
experience in certain ways, to bring new facets
and forces, new intensities and relations into
being’ (1999, p. 31). This involves ‘the mak-
ing up of governable spaces: populations, na-
tions, societies, economies, classes, families,
schools, factories, individuals’ (1991, p. 31).
Governable spaces are not, however, ‘fabri-
cated counter to experience’. On the contrary,
they ‘make new kinds of experience possible,
produce new modes of perception, invest
percepts with affects, with dangers and oppor-
tunities, with saliences and attractions’ (1999,
p. 32; cf.affect). Rose distinguishes three
dimensions to the analysis of governable
space(1999, pp. 34–40). These are:

(1) Territorializing governmental thought
through, for example, the formation of

national ‘societies’ and ‘territories’.

Smaller-scale territorializations such as

the cityand theregion can also be

traced (cf.territoriality).

(2) Spatializing the gaze of governorsthrough

technologies of vision and visuality,

and particularlycartographyand the

use ofcartographic reason (Pickles,

2004).

(3) Modelling the space of government. This

typically takes two forms: isotropic

models and depth models. Isotropic

models conceptualize space as ‘the same

everywhere’. This might involve the use

of plans, grids and surveys to tame space

and make it comprehensible to rational-

ities of government. Isotropic models are

particularly important in thebiopolitics

ofcolonialism, where they enabled the

extension of Western forms of govern-

mental rationality and judicial sover-

eignty into the spaces of racialized

‘Others’ (Olund, 2002). The model of

political economy, on the other hand,

involves a depth model with ‘hidden’ de-

terminants, such as the ‘law’ of supply

and demand, that can be distinguished

from the surface appearance of things.

Space is thus made governable through the

application of specific technologies and prac-

tices, including population monitoring, statis-

tics, surveying and cadastral mapping.

On the other hand, despite the prevalence

of such abstract and calculative techniques,

bodilyviolenceremains a widespread mech-

anism for the production of governable space,

as shown by Watts’ (2006) study of the Niger

Delta. jpa

Suggested reading

Olund (2002); Pickles (2004); Rose (1999);

Watts (2006).

governance A term that is sometimes used

loosely to mean simply government, but more

precisely refers to the process of social and

economic coordination, management and

‘steering’. Under this umbrella definition

may be found a number of sometimes contra-

dictory usages. At its broadest, governance can

mean any kind of coordination between organ-

izations, parts of organizations, groups and

individuals, ranging from hierarchical ‘com-

mand and control’ systems to decentralized

forms of interaction (such asmarketforms of

exchange). Most commonly, however, gov-

ernance refers to forms of inter-organizational

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_G Final Proof page 312 2.4.2009 6:30pm

GLOCALIZATION