Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_T Date:31/3/09
Time:21:40:50 Filepath://ppdys1108/BlackwellCup/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-
9781405132879/appln/3B2/revises/9781405132879_4_T.3d
into territorial cells or units that can be
relatively autonomous (as with the division of
global space into territorialnation-states)or
arranged hierarchically from basic units in
which work, administration orsurveillance
is carried out through intermediate levels at
which managerial or supervisory functions
are located to the top-most level, at which
central control is concentrated. Alternative
spatialitiesof political and economic organ-
ization, particularly hierarchicalnetworks(as
in theworld-citynetwork) or reticular net-
works (as with theinternet), can challenge or
supplement the use of territoriality.
Theoretically, territoriality can be judged as
having a number of different origins including:
(1) as a result of explicit territorial strategizing
to devolve administrative functions but main-
tain central control (Sack, 1986); (2) as a sec-
ondary result of resolving the dilemmas facing
social groups in deliveringpublic goods(as in
Michael Mann’s, 1984b, sociology of terri-
tory); (3) as an expedient facilitating coordin-
ation between capitalists who are otherwise in
competition with one another (as inmarxist
theories of the state); (4) as the focus of one
strategy among several ofgovernmentality
(as in Michel Foucault’s writings); and (5)
as a result of defining boundaries between
social groups to identify and maintain group
cohesion, as in the writings of Georg Simmel
(Lechner, 1991) and Fredrik Barth (1969),
and in more recent sociological theories of
politicalidentity(Agnew 2003b). Whatever
its origins, territoriality is put into practice in a
number of different if often complementary
ways: (1) by popular acceptance ofclassi-
ficationsof space (e.g. ‘ours’ versus ‘yours’);
(2) through communication of a sense of
place(where territorial markers andbound-
ariesevoke meanings); and (3) byenforcing
controlover space (bysurveillance,policing
and legitimation).
There are important cultural and historical
dimensions to territoriality. Churches and pol-
ities (states, empires, federations etc.) have
been the most important users of territoriality.
Some churches (such as the Roman Catholic
Church) and some states (such as the United
States) have more complex and formally hier-
archical territorialities than others. Today,
transnational corporationsand global busi-
nesses erect territorial hierarchies that cut
across existing political ones. So, even as
some users of territoriality fade away, others
emerge. Though varying in precise form and
complexity, therefore, territoriality seems
always to be with us. jaSuggested reading
Amin and Thrift (1997); Brenner, Jessop, Jones
and Macleod (2003).territorialization The dynamic process
whereby humans and their affairs are fixed
territorially in space, by a range of actors but
primarily bystates. On the contrary,deterri-
torializationsignifies a growing tendency for
states, in the context of globalcapitalism,to
encounter and often encourage an uprooting
of people and things with massive social,
psychological, and political consequences.
Reterritorialization is the reverse of this
process.
In some usage, particularly that of Deleuze
and Guattari (e.g. 1972), employment of
deterritorialization seems to simply refer to
the breakdown ofterritorialityin thought
and practice.epistemologicallyjuxtaposing
‘State philosophy’ with ‘nomad thought’,
Deleuze and Guattari associate territorializa-
tion with the former and deterritorialization
with the latter. ontologically, however,
there could be quite different territorial sys-
tems at play over time as, for example, with
pre- and post-colonial contact between colon-
izers and natives leading to the breakdown of
one system, followed by a period of deterritor-
ialization before the imposition of a new terri-
toriality. Crucial to the concept of
deterritorialization with Deleuze and Guattari
is the claim that ‘Processes are becomings, and
aren’t to be judged by some final result but by
the way they proceed and their power to con-
tinue, as with animal becomings, or nonsub-
jective individuations’ (Deleuze, 1995,
p. 146).
More typically, two other approaches tend
to dominate contemporary usage. In the first
case,territoryis posed as a physical ‘base’
for human activities and deterritorialization is
viewed as either the lessening importance of
local constraints or the weakening of the im-
pact of physical distance oneveryday life.
The increased speed of financial and other
transactions, the so-called conquest of space
by time (cf.time__space convergence) and the
advent ofcyberspaceare frequently invoked
to explain what deterritorialization is held to
describe. Such ideas are part and parcel of
much discussion of economicglobalization.
In the second case, territory is perceived as a
spatial assemblage of powerrelations and
identitystrategies. From this perspective,
such ideas as the ‘end of territory’ and the
rise of network space are linked to the recent
onset of a worldwide deterritorializationGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_T Final Proof page 745 31.3.2009 9:40pm Compositor Name: ARajuTERRITORIALIZATIONTERRITORIALIZATION