Está en la página 1de 29

L a

a r r e t ,a. S o e i a 1

Cado Emilio Piazzini. Magster en Historia de la Universidad acional de Colombia, sede Medelln. Actualmente se desempea como Subdirector Cientfico del Instituto Colombiano de Antropologa e Historia. En los ltimos aos ha hecho parte del Grupo de Investigacin Estudios del Territorio adscrito al Instituto de Estudios Regionales, desde donde lider la formulacin y puesta en marcha de la Maestra en Estudios Socioespaciales. Ha realizado investigaciones arqueolgicas e histricas y sus intereses acadmicos se relacionan con los estudios sociales del espacio-tiempo (memoria, patrimonio y territorio) y el anlisis de la historicidad y la geopoltica del pensamiento histrico y arqueolgico. Entre sus publicaciones recientes estn: Arqueologa entre historia y prehistoria (2007); De las artes de la memoria a la geopoltica de la memoria (2006); El tiempo situado: las tempomlidades despus del giro espacial (2006); Arqueologa, Espacio y Tiempo: una mirada desde Latinoamrica (2006) y, Los estudios socioespaciales: hacia una agenda de investigacin transdisciplinaria (2004). Vladimir Montoya. Candidato a Doctor en Antropologa Social y Cultural de la Universidad de Barcelona. Actualmente se desempea como coordinador y docente de la Maestra en estudios Socioespaciales del Instituto de Estudios Regionales de la Universidad de Antioquia y Coordinador del Grupo Cultura, Violencia y Territorio de la misma entidad. Ha realizado investigaciones sobre movimientos sociales, etnicidad, migracin y memoria. En el ltimo tiempo viene desarrollando estudios sobre geopoltica y memoria, con recurso a metodologas audiovisuales y con una perspectiva epistemolgica apoyada en la cartografa social. Sus publicaciones recientes son: "Espacio e identidad, sobre el sentido de lugar y la idea de territorialidad" [en prensa]; "El mapa de lo invisible. Silencios y gramtica del poder en la cartografa (2007) y, "Being a minority in the view of other 's people hegemony discourse. Indigenous People confronting ethnic politics in Guainia". (2004).

Geopolticas: espacios de poder y poder de los espacios

Carlo Emilio Piazzini Surez Vladimir Montoya Arango

Geopolticas: espacios de poder y poder de los espacios

Antloqula para todos.

ilJ)4tlOS 4 la obral

JVERSIDAD

DE ANTlOQUIA
J
IH

La Carreta
t:AHlon~

..u.
2008

ISBN: 978-958-8427-00-3 2008 Carlo Emilio Piazzini Surez Vladimir Montoya Arango 2008 Departamento Administrativo 2008 La Carreta Editores E.U. La Carreta Editores E.U. Editor: Csar A. Hurtado Orozco E-mail: lacarreta@une.net.co Telfono: 250 06 84 Medelln, Colombia Primera edicin: abril de 2008 Cartula: diseo de lvaro Vlez Ilustracin: Norman Bejarano Restrepo, Vigilia, acrlico sobre lienzo, 2002 Impreso y hecho en Colombia / Printed and made in Colombia por Impresos Marticolor Queda rigurosamente prohibida, sin la autorizacin escrita de los titulares del copyright, bajo las sanciones establecidas en las leyes, la reproduccin total o parcial de esta obra por cualquier medio o procedimiento, comprendidas las lecturas universitarias, la reprografa y el tratamiento informtico, y la distribucin de ejemplares de ella mediante alquiler pblico. de Planeacin, Gobernacin de Antioquia

36o~

Contenido

f-r. 1 '\
Introduccin: la potencia del espacio 7

Carlo Emilio Piazzini y Vladimir Montoya


Spatiality and Territoriality in Contemporary Social Science 15

}ohn Agnew
Tierras baldas, territorios de nadie? Geopoltica de un proyecto minero en la guajira colombiana

31

Claudia Puerta y Roben VH Dover


Los confines del proyecto cultural paisa 51

Carlos Augusto Giraldo


Transformaciones de la geopoltica y la biopoltica de la soberana: soberana restringida y neoprotectorados formales

71

Heriberto Cairo Carou


Del hacer morir o dejar vivir al hacer vivir y dejar morir. Cambios en el ejercicio de la soberana en el espacio de la guerra: del territorio a la poblacin

89

Elsa Blair y Ayder Berro


Cartografias moviles y alteridades subordinadas. Hacia un anlisis (geo)/(bio)/ poltico de la exclusin en la migracin iberoamericana

109

Vla:dimir Montoya
El advenimiento del homo urbano. Biopoltca en bogot (1910-1929) y planificacin urbana 129

Santiago Castro
Mil cuasi territorios. Soportes para lo comn y lo identitario. La arquitectura como juego de transacciones entre signos, contextos y tiempos

153

Carmen Guerra, Flix de la Iglesia y Carlos Tapia


Cronotopos, memorias y lugares: una mirada desde los patrimonios 171

Carlo Emilio Piazzini Surez


Datos de los autores 185

~o

DJ!:

tJUt.;lJMc""ll.c\\..1U~

~S'l1TUTO

m~ESTUDIOS
5

RBGIONAL~

IJliiIVJ.BSlDAD Da

.urrw.Q~

Introduccin: la potencia del espacio

Carlo Emilio Piazzini


Instituto Colombiano de Antropologa e Historia

Vladimir Montoya
Instituto de Estudios Regionales. Universidad de Antioquia

Esta publicacin se debe a la dinmica acadmica de la Maestra en Estudios Socioespaciales, iniciativa impulsada por el Instituto de Estudios Regionales, INER de la Universidad de Antioquia, en cuya formulacin y puesta en marcha han participado activamente investigadores del Instituto y otras unidades acadmicas de Colombia y otros pases. La Maestra, hay que decido, es nica en su gnero, dada su adscripcin temtica no disciplinar a problemticas relacionadas con el espacio desde una perspectiva social. Confluyen aqu las elaboraciones discursivas de la geografa, la historia, la antropologa, la arqueologa, la sociologa, la psicologa, la poltica, la literatura, la arquitectura, la filosofa y las artes, para conformar un horizonte de produccin de pensamiento social, calificado por el ejercicio de la crtica, la pluralidad terica y la transdisciplinareidad. Por ello, desde su gestacin, el Programa ha convocado a la reflexin sobre los enfoques y metodologas con que ha sido abordado el estudio de las relaciones entre el espacio y la cultura, la economa, la poltica y la historia, promoviendo entonces el dilogo y debate entre posturas que no slo son tericamente diversas, sino que provienen de lugares de enunciacin situados diferencialmente en las cartografas y geopolticas del conocimiento. La fecundidad de estas formas de indagacin ha permitido que desde 2004, cuando el diseo de la Maestra estaba an en proceso, se comenzaran a producir textos dirigidos, bien a desplegar la potencia interpretativa de una tal aproximacin socioespacial (Piazzini, 2004), o a desarrollar problemas especficos en torno a temas tan diversos como las espacialidades de la guerra (Blair, 2004 y 2005), las cartografas sociales (Montoya, 2007) o las relaciones entre las materialidades, el espacio y la memoria (Piazzini, 2006a y 2006b). En estas primeras aproximaciones, se hizo visible cmo elaboraciones discursivas con un largo desarrollo disciplinar en el mbito de la sociologa, la geografa, la historia y la arqueologa, se complicaban, adquiriendo implicaciones completamente nuevas cuando se las pona en relacin con la cuestin espacial, siempre y cuando sta ltima fuera tratada en un plano diferente al de las meras adsripciones geogrficas de fenmenos y casos sociales, o de los soportes y escenarios geofsicos donde las acciones humanas tenan lugar. En suma, el tomar en serio el enunciado acerca del advenimiento de una edad del espacio que entreviera Michel Foucault (1967) hace ya cuatro dcadas, as como las tesis pioneras de Henri Lefevbre (1991) sobre el espacio como produccin social y los planteamientos ulteriores sobre la necesidad de avanzar hacia el establecimiento de una ontologa del espacio, efectuadas desde perspectivas y lugares de enunciacin tan diversos por Eduard Soja (1989), David Harvey (1998), Jos Luis Pardo (1992) o Milton Santos (2000),

entre otros, ha permitido avanzar por caminos novedosos y fecundos, gracias a aquello que, siguiendo a Frederic Jameson (1991), podramos nombrar como el efecto del giro espacial. Pero al decidir ese trnsito no andbamos solos. Cuando en 2003 comenzamos a indagar por la temtica a la que deba remitirse un programa de maestra con nfasis investigativo, adscrito a una unidad acadmica que como el INER no era de carcter disciplinar, encontramos en el dilogo crtico con pares nacionales como Martha Herrera, Ovidio Delgado, Santiago Castro y Beatriz Nates, la certeza necesaria para pasar, gradualmente y en medio de numerosos debates, de una maestra en estudios regionales, a una en estudios del territorio, y de all, a una maestra menos convencional en estudios socioespaciales. Como se ve, a diferencia de otras experiencias ms frecuentes, en las que el diseo de programas de posgrado se realiza desde unidades acadmicas con una clara adscripcin disciplinar (programas de antropologa con posgrados en antropologa, programas de historia con posgrados en historia ... ), la eleccin del mbito temtico de la maestra del INER implicaba un esfuerzo adicional. A todo ello se sumaba el hecho de que existan en el mbito nacional e internacional, campos de desempeo reconocidos que, en primera instancia ya haban demarcado temticas semejantes: planeacin urbano-regional, planeacin del desarrollo, estudios regionales o territoriales, geografa social... Entonces, Zporqu no remitirse a alguno de estos campos, en lugar de esforzarse en la definicin de uno nuevo? La respuesta, en breve, estaba en que nuestra iniciativa reconoca en lo espacial un referente con tal grado de prescedencia epistemolgica e importancia poltica, que no poda ser circunscrito a perspectivas centradas en lo instrumental o disciplinar, sin que perdiera su potencia para producir pensamiento crtico e integral sobre las relaciones entre el espacio y la sociedad. Esta apuesta por un programa de maestra cuya temtica resultaba tan novedosa y ambiciosa como arriesgada, fue presentada en 2004 ante pares nacionales e internacionales en el marco del Seminario (Deslterritoralidades y (No) lugares, cuya realizacin dio pie a la publicacin del libro del mismo nombre (Herrera y Piazzini, 2006). La temtica elegida, sealaba un tpico sumamente problemtico para los estudios socioespaciales, como es el del debate entre planteamientos que, de una parte, decretaban la muerte o cuando menos el debilitamiento de categoras espaciales como el territorio, las fronteras y los lugares, de la mano de enunciados sobre la globalizacin o mundializacin de los procesos econmicos, polticos y culturales (i.e. Aug, 1993; Virilio, 1997) y, de otra parte, reconocan el fortalecimiento e incluso la emergencia de fenmenos de exaltacin de lo local y de diferenciacin socioterritorial, en el marco de lo que ha dado en llamarse glocalizacin (cf. Swyngedouw, 2004). La participacin del auditorio y los invitados al foro final de dicho seminario, nos indic que tampoco estabamos solos en el mbito internacional: a los valiosos aportes de estudiosos colombianos como Ingrid Bolvar, Pilar Riao, Cristbal Gnecco y Alejandro Castillejo, se sumaron las colaboraciones efectuadas por Johanne Rapapport, Luis Castro Nogueira, Ulrich Oslender, Jess Martn Barbero y Daniel Mato. Desde entonces, y an sin iniciar el ciclo acadmico de la Maestra, se vea la conveniencia de crear una dinmica sostenida de interlocucin alimentada por las voces de aquellos que, retornando la jocosa expresin de Luis Castro Nogueira, constituan el grupo de los colegas socioespaciales.

s s
-r

e a o

Justamente en la perspectiva de jalonar una iniciativa de trabajo conjunto entre personas e instituciones de la ms variada procedencia, bajo el comn denominador de reconocimiento de lo socioespacial como un campo promisorio de produccin de pensamiento social, se realiz en 2007 el Primer Seminario Internacional de Estudios Socioespaciales, evento del cual se deriva el presente libro. Pero el evento responda, adems, a una cuestin de la mayor importancia en todo este proceso: doce jvenes, formados en disciplinas tan diversas como la historia, la antropologa, la arquitectura, la psicologa, el trabajo social, la ingeniera administrativa y la gestin de recursos culturales, decidieron apostarle a su formacin en la Maestra en Estudios Socioespaciales, con lo cual se iniciaba la primera cohorte. Con el subttulo: Geopolticas, espacios de poder y poder de los espacios, se ha querido suscitar una reflexin sobre la geopoltica, partiendo de una concepcin renovada de la misma, que no se limita al anlisis de las alianzas y disputas de corte poltico, diplomtico o militar entre Estados o bloques de Estados a escala mundial, sino que trasciende hacia otras esferas de las relaciones entre espacio y poder (Cf. Agnew, 2005; Tuathail, 1998). De all que hayamos preferido hablar de geopolticas, enfatizando en el plural, para hacer visible cmo el poder deviene diverso, heterrquico, pluritpico, una vez se han identificado los lmites geohistricos del proyecto moderno, que cruza, en un orden disciplinado y descendente, desde los poderes inter o transnacionales a los poderes locales, incluyendo oficiosamente las esferas de lo nacional y lo regional. Entonces emergen las geopolticas que ponen en contacto lo local con lo transnacional, desafiando las soberanas estatales; pero ms interesante an: las espacialidades del poder se constituyen y a la vez ponen en funcionamiento, sistemas polticos de diferenciacin jerarquizada que involucran las vidas de los sujetos, los cuerpos, las naturalezas, las tecnologas, las arquitecturas y las materialidades. La apertura hacia un pensamiento tal de las geopolticas es posible en la medida en que se apoya en un concepto del espacio que enfatiza su relacin de mutua afectacin con lo social, y por supuesto, con lo poltico. De esta manera, la cuestin no se limita a establecer cmo los poderes se expresan o manifiestan a travs del control del espacio, de la soberana sobre un territorio o de poblaciones, redes y recursos inscritos en el mismo, sino que aspira a comprender la manera en que las espacialidades, entendidas como formas de produccin social del espacio, pueden incidir de manera severa en la dinmica de las relaciones de poder. Esta diferencia, que en primera instancia podra parecer sutil, es, sin embargo, la misma que permite concebir el espacio como algo diferente de una entidad geofsica en-s misma (baluarte de no pocos gegrafos fsicos y ordenadores del territorio), o de otra parte, como una absoluta construccin o re-presentacin mental (idea cara a muchos antroplogos y otros cientficos sociales). Pensar el espacio purificado de su materialidad resulta tan inadecuado como concebirlo como entidad dada, fija y natural. Los captulos que componen este libro, son el resultado de un proceso de reelaboracin conjunta entre autores y editores, a partir de las conferencias presentadas en el Seminario, o de contribuciones que, sin haber hecho parte del evento, desarrollan temticas afines. El orden que hemos dado a las contribuciones, responde a la identificacin de tres grupos de textos: los que se desarrollan fundamentalmente en el mbito de la geopoltica (captulos 1 a 3), los que ponen en relacin la geopoltica con la biopoltica (captulos 4 a 7) y los que se interesan por el tema de las materialidades, concretamente las arquitecturas y los patrimonios culturales (captulos 8 y 9).

En el primer captulo, [ohn Agnew hace nfasis en la manera en que la espacialidad de los poderes polticos se transforma histricamente, de tal forma que la asimilacin entre un Estado y un territorio, que ha funcionado como unidad bsica en la imaginacin geopoltica de la modernidad, ha oscurecido la existencia de otras formaciones espaciales del poder. Segn se desprende de sus planteamientos, la interaccin espacial a travs de redes y la emergencia de poderes basados en sentidos de lugar, son otras tantas espacialidades polticas que pueden funcionar de manera complementaria a las territorialidades del Estado-nacin, e incluso, como sucede hoy en da, pueden retar y transformar el papel de ste ltimo en la geopoltica mundial. En los captulos segundo y tercero, la imaginacin geopoltica moderna resulta criticada a propsito de dos procesos en los cuales las tensiones por el territorio conectan modelos globales con realidades locales. El texto de Claudia Puerta y Robert Dover aborda el caso de la explotacin de recursos mineros en territorios indgenas en la Guajira, mostrando como all se involucran instancias polticas, normativas y regulaciones que no son exclusivamente estatales, sino que manifiestan la capacidad de accin de otros agentes y poderes, constituyendo la sesin, de facto, de parte de la soberana estatal a empresas transnacionales. Carlos Augusto Giraldo por su parte, indaga en el proceso histrico de conformacin del nordeste antioqueo y analiza el papel que cumpli all la imaginacin geopoltica moderna en su catalogacin y encuadramiento dentro del arquetipo de subregin perifrica y marginal. Con esto, el autor muestra como el sentido jerarquizado conferido al ordenamiento espacial, deriv en un aislamiento de las zonas catalogadas como 'baldos' o 'zonas vacas', asociadas con reas boscosas, que se valoraron nicamente desde sus potenciales biofsicos, mientras se consolidaba una imagen denigrante de sus poblaciones, consideradas ajenas al modelo hegemnico de lo 'paisa' y compelidas a su integracin bajo una geometra de relaciones de poder que reafirma la visin centralista y metropolitana sobre las relaciones urbano-rurales. Considerando que el pensamiento de la geopoltica contempornea debe atender a procesos de (relconfiguracn de las espacialidades del poder, que no siempre obedecen al esquema moderno de jerarquizacin y precedencia desde escalas mayores hasta escalas menores, es necesario tener en cuenta otras esferas de la vida social, en las cuales la diferenciacin y la clasificacin espacial sirven al establecimiento de relaciones de poder. Por esta va, los planteamientos de Heriberto Cairo en el cuarto captulo, avanzan hacia una articulacin de los conceptos de geopoltica y biopoltica, en torno a la idea del control de los cuerpos y de las poblaciones humanas, de su vida y de su muerte, todo ello en el marco de lo que denomina soberanas hegemnicas y soberanas dbiles. De acuerdo con el autor, en el mundo contemporneo existira una jerarqua que va del hacer vivir de los ciudadanos polticamente calificados por la soberana de organizaciones supraestatales o estatales del primer mundo, al dejar morir de los ciudadanos pertenecientes a soberanas dbiles o del tercer mundo. Otra conexin entre biopoltica y geopoltica es la realizada en el quinto captulo por EIsa Blair y Ayder Berro a propsito de la guerra. Los autores realizan una revisin del concepto de soberana, inicialmente sustentado en la geopoltica clsica del dominio territorial por parte del Estado, para comprender su transformacin cuando entran en funcionamiento estrategias de control biopoltico que des centran el inters sobre el territorio y lo dirigen hacia los cuerpos y las vidas de las poblaciones. A partir

10

ir-

la
r-

aeta
c-

:rt en

:u..
de la te, el .nel eri:ia:os, ijenelas ider ibeores , en I de arto tica, vida :as y una )f la fejar fa. tulo isin 1 doando ters oartir

de esta reflexin, Blair y Berro vuelven al anlisis sobre la guerra contempornea, indicando cmo sus transformaciones expresan la articulacin propuesta por Michel Foucualt entre el hacer morir y el dejar morir (Foucault, 2002). En los captulos sexto y sptimo, dos contribuciones se encargan de analizar la relacin entre geopoltica y biopoltica a propsito de contextos geo-histricos especficos. Vladimir Montoya explora cmo la diferenciacin entre sujetos 'aptos/calificados' del primer mundo y seres 'inocuos' provenientes del tercer mundo opera como un criterio de exclusin, en el que se articulan las intencionalidades geopolticas con las estrategias de control biopoltico, a la hora de contener/repeler la migracin Sur-Norte, especficamente en el caso de la movilidad humana entre Latinoamrica y Espaa. Por su parte, Santiago Castro se acerca a una situacin especfica en la que oper la biopoltica en consonancia con determinados esquemas geopolticos, en el momento en que se instaura el ordenamiento espacial durante el proceso de industrializacin de la ciudad de Bogot a principios del siglo xx. En particular, el autor muestra que ciertas tecnologas como la luz elctrica y el transporte urbano, en conjuncin con el ejercicio pionero de la planeacin, incidieron en la segregacin espacial, el disciplinamiento de los cuerpos y la construccin de nuevas subjetividades entre la poblacin. El tema de la arquitectura como uno de los dispositivos de la planeacin, es abordado por Carmen Guerra, Flix de la Iglesia y Carlos Tapia en el captulo octavo. La arquitectura es entendida por los autores como una disciplina/saber que produce mediaciones y apropiaciones especficas del espacio al introducir en l ciertos instrumentos y artefactos. Luego de efectuar una crtica de la administracin centralizada del territorio, presentan con nimo propositivo, un proyecto arquitectnico de gestin alternativa de la habitacin en un espacio suburbano de Sevilla. Una ltima perspectiva para pensar la relacin espacio-poder, es presentada por Cado Emilio Piazzini en el noveno captulo. Se trata de examinar el rol de aquellas materialidades decretadas como patrimonio cultural en los procesos de produccin de territorialidades y memorias. De acuerdo con el autor, pese al tono neutral y positivo que suele rodear el discurso sobre el patrimonio cultural, ste debe ser entendido como un dispositivo poltico que, al materializar y situar en una relacin inextricable determinadas experiencias y concepciones del espacio y el tiempo social, posee una potencia particular para fundamentar o transformar esquemas geopolticos y cronopolticos. Todos estos textos son, cada uno a su manera, una invitacin para avanzar en indagaciones sobre los espacios de poder y el poder de los espacios. Invitacin a la que, desafiando la geopoltica tradicional del conocimiento, se suma la iniciativa de dar paso a la conformacin de una red acadmica que no emerge desde los consabidos centros metropolitanos de produccin de conocimiento, sino que se teje por relaciones multidireccionales entre nodos situados en todos aquellos lugares donde se considere que pensar el espacio, es pensar tambin desde el espacio. En esta perspectiva, durante la realizacin del seminario que dio origen a este libro, tuvo lugar la instalacin de la Red de Estudios Socioespaciales, una propuesta tendiente a propiciar condiciones de largo plazo para la cooperacin interinstitucional en materia de intercambio acadmico, realizacin de programas y proyectos de investigacin comparados, desarrollo de proyectos editoriales y encuentros acadmicos. 11

La iniciativa ha recibido ya el aval, mediante convenio, del Instituto de Desarrollo Regional de Andaluca y el Instituto de Estudios Regionales de la Universidad de Antioquia, as como la declaracin de propsito por parte investigadores de universidades de otros pases, como la Universidad de California, la Universidad de Sevilla, la Universidad Complutense y la Universidad Nacional de Educacin a Distancia de Madrid. Pero la red requiere de otros nodos situados en Colombia y, en tal sentido ha sido bien valorada por parte de investigadores y coordinadores de programas de posgrado de la Universidad de Pamplona, la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, la Universidd de Cartagena y la Universidad Nacional, sede Medelln. Esperamos que los colegas socioespaciales valoren esta apuesta, y hagan parte de la misma, de tantas formas como sea provechoso para todos. Los editores desean agradecer a los ponentes del seminario y autores de los textos aqu presentados, as como a las entidades que han hecho posible la publicacin del libro, como son el Departamento Administrativo de Planeacin de la Gobernacin de Antioquia y el Instituto de Estudios Regionales de la Universidad de Antioquia, cuyos directores, el Doctor Pedro Juan Gonzlez Carvajal y la Doctora Lucelly Villegas Villegas, respectivamente, han apoyado decididamente la puesta en marcha de una lnea renovada de anlisis sobre las geopolticas contemporneas. Tambin agradecemos a la Universidad de California-Los ngeles, la Universidad Complutense, la Universidad de Luxemburgo, la Universidad de Sevilla, la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana y al Instituto de Desarrollo Regional de Andaluca, por apoyar activamente la participacin de sus acadmicos en el Seminario. Igualmente, a la Rectora y la Vicerrectora de Investigaciones de la Universidad de Antioquia, Planea, Icetex, Colciencias, Interconexin Elctrica S.A. e Isagen; entidades todas que apoyaron financieramente la realizacin del Evento. Este libro est dirigido, muy especialmente, a los estudiantes de la primera cohorte de la Maestra en Estudios Socioespaciales, a quienes debemos todos los esfuerzos por mantener la calidad acadmica del programa y por abrir sus posibilidades de participacin en la dinmica de otros programas afines. Como hemos dicho alguna vez: sera conveniente que los crditos acadmicos se calcularan, no slo por el nmero de horas de formacin, sino, adems, por el nmero de kilmetros recorridos en la bsqueda de respuestas y nuevos interrogantes.

Bibliografa
Agnew, [ohn 2005, Geopoltica: una re-visin de la geopoltica mundial, Madrid, Trama editorial. Aug, Marc 1993, Los no lugares espacios del anonimato: una antropologa de la sobremodemidad. Barcelona: Gedisa. Blair, EIsa 2004, Conflicto armado, actores y territorios: Los visos de un caleidoscopio, Regiones 2: 115-135. ___ 2005, Memorias de violencia. Espacio, tiempo y narracin, Controversia 185:9-19. Foucault, Michel1967, Of other spaces, Conferencia dictada en el Cercle des tudes

12

architecturals el 14 de marzo de 1967. Publicada originalmente en: Architecture, Mouvement, Continuit NQ 5 de octubre de 1984. Versin traducida al ingls por Jay Miscowiec, disponible en: http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/ focucault.heteroTopia.en.html. Consulta del 13 de junio de 2004. ___ 2002, Derecho de muerte y poder sobre la vida, en: Historia de la sexualidad 1. La voluntad de saber, Madrid, Siglo XXI. Harvey, David 1998, La condicin de la posmodemidad. Investigaciones sobre los orgenes del cambio cultural, Buenos Aires, Amorrortu Editores. Herrera, Diego y Emilio Piazzini (editores) 2006, (Des) territorialidades y (No)lugares: procesos de configuracin y transformacin social del espacio, Medelln, La Carreta editores / Instituto de Estudios Regionales. Jameson, Frederic 1991, Postmodemism or the cultural logic of late capitalismo London, Verso. Lefebvre, Henri 1991, The production of space, Cambridge, Blackwell. Montoya, Vladimir 2007, El mapa de lo invisible. Silencios y gramtica del poder en la cartografa, Universitas Humanistica 63: 155-179. Tuathail, Gearid 1998, Postmodern Geopolitics? The Modern Geopolitical Imagination and Beyond, en: Rethinking Geopolitics. Gearid Tuathail y Simon Dalby eds. London/New York, Routledge, pp. 16-38. Pardo, Jos 1992, Las formas de la exterioridad, Valencia, Pretextos. Piazzini, Emilio 2006, De las artes de la memoria a la geopoltica de la memoria, en: Escenarios de reflexin. Las ciencias sociales y humanas a debate, Oscar Almario y Miguel A. Ruz (compiladores), Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medelln, pp. 115-135. _---,--_ 2006b, Arqueologa, espacio y tiempo: una mirada desde Latinoamrica, Arqueologa Suramericana 2 (1): 3-25. 2004, Los estudios socioespaciales: hacia una agenda de investigacin --transdisciplinaria, Regiones 2: 151-172. Soja, Edward 1989, Postmodern geographies. The reassettion of space in critical social theory, Londres, Verso. Swvngedouw, Erik 2004, Globalisation or 'Glocalisation'? Networks, Territories and Rescaling, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17 (1): 25-48. Virilio, Paul 1997, Fin de l'histoire, ou fin de la gographie? Un monde surexpos, Le Monde Diplomatique, agosto, p. 17. Disponible en http://www.monde-di-lomaticiue.frl J997108NIRILlO/89484. Consulta de octubre 20 de 2004.

13

Spatialitv and territoriality in contemporary social science

John Agnew Department of Geography University of Calfornia-Los Angeles

Abstract

In this paper I begin by exploring how territory and territoriality operate as modes of spatiality, or conceptions of the uses of space in the social sciences. I then argue that territory has become fatefully tied to the modern state, particularly in English-language understandings. Finally, I suggest that two further modes of spatiality, spatial interaction and place-making, provide analytically important ways of thinking about space and society beyond the limitations imposed by a geographical imagination limited to a singularly territorial conceptioti of spatiality.

Resumen

En este ensayo comienzo por explorar cmo territorio y territorialidad operan como formas de espacialidad o como conceptos empleados para abordar el espacio en las ciencias sociales. Entonces discuto que el territorio ha estado drdsticamente ligado al estado moderno, particularmente en los discursos de habla inglesa. Finalmente sugiero que otras dos formas de concebir la espacialidad, como son la interaccin espacial y la construccin de lugar, proveen formas importantes de andlisis para pensar el espacio y la sociedad, superando las limitaciones impuestas por la imaginacin geogrdfica de la modernidad, que ha estado restringida a una concepcin territorial de la espacialidad.

In many languages the word territory tvpically refers to a unit of contiguous space that is used, organized and managed by a social group, individual person or institution to restrict and control access to people and places. Though sometimes the word is used as synonymous with place or space, territory has never been a term as primordial or as generic as they are in the canons of geographical terminology (Agnew, 2005a). The dominant usage has always been either political, in the sense of necessarily involving the power to limit access to certain places or regions, or ethological, in the of the dominance exercised over a space by a given species or Jn individual organismo Increasingly, territory is coupled with the concept of ne"twork to help understand the complex processes through which space is managed and controlled by powerful organizations. In ths light, territory is only one type of spatiality, or way in which space is used, rather than the one monopolizing its employment. From this perspective, territoriality is the strategic use of territory to attain organizational goals. It is only one way of organizing space.

se~~

15

Spatialitv

rcl;;rr to absolute

or-

Territory is particularly associated with the spatiality of the modern state with its control over a population within carefully defined external borders (Agnew, 2005b; Buchanan and Moore, 2003: 6). Indeed, until Sack (1986) extended the understanding of human territoriality as a strategy to individuals and organizations in general, usage of the term territory was largely confined to the spatial organization of states. In the social sciences such as ec nomics, sociology and political science this is still manly the case, such that the challe'ngt posed to territory by network forms af organization (associated with globalization) is invariably characterized in totalistic terms as 'the end of geography.' This signifies the ~x-ten"tto which territory has become the dominant geographical.,J~~ (and imagination) in the social sciences (~~f!~~.'.j 1995). It is then closely allied to state sovereignty and, sometimes, to an entirefy , risted, scale-based territorial conc~{?tion of space (from the local and the urban through the national to the global). Tnus, as sovereignty is seen to 'erocferor 'unbundle,' so it seems goes territory (Agnew, 1994). From this viewpoint territory takes on an epistemological monopoly that is understood as absolutely fundamental to modernity. As such, it can then be given an extended meaning to refer to any socially constructed geographical space, not just that resulting from statehood, and can be used as equivalent to the term place in many languages including French, Spanish and Italian (Bonnemaison, 1996; Scivoletto, 1983; Storper 1997). Especially popular with some French-language geographers, this usage often reflects the need to adopt a term to distinguish the particular and the local from the more general global or national 'space.' It then signifies the 'bottom-tier' spatial context for identity and cultural difference more than a simple 'top-down' connection between state and territory but still within an encompassing territorialized conception of spatialitv, In absolute counterpoint, some proponents of a postmodern conception of space see that space as completely flan without any sort of territorial division or hierarchies whatsoever (e.g. Marston et al., 2005) and thus provide a totally opposite but equally singular view of spatiality, albeit this time of localized sites in a networked spatial topology rather than of an absolute territorialized space. Territoriality in its b';(; dest sense, then, is either the organization and exercise of power, legitimate or othb1wise;over blocs of space or he organization of people and things into discrete areas through the use of bo~~a;i:es. In studies of animal behavior spatial division into territories is seen as an evolutionary principle, a way of fostering competition so that those best matched to their territory will have more surviving offspring. With human territorialitv, however, spatial division is more typically thought of as a strategy used by organizations and groups to manage social, economic and political activities. From this viewpoint, space is partitioned into territorial cel s r units that can be relatively autonomous (as with the division of global space into territorial nation-states) or ahang~hierar'thilfY [rom basic units in which work, administration, or surveillance 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 spatialities of political and economic organizatian, particularly hierarchical networks (as in the world-city network) or reticular networks (as with the Internet), can challenge or supplement the use of territoriality. 16

s s

d
rs n is

)f
ic
le

In

e, m ty. ed
.nt

At least four models of the spatiality of power can be dentfed. I draw here on the work of the French geographers Marie-Francoise Durand, Denis Retaill and Jacques Lvy (e.g. Durand et al., 1992) who have used idealized models of economic and cultural patterns and interaction to understand long-term shfts in world politics. Each of their models is closely associated with sets of political-economc/technologcal conditons and associated cultural understandings. The logic of the approach is that the dominant spatiality of power will change as material conditions and associated modes of understanding of them change. Such processes of change are not construed as entirely spontaneous. Rather, this approach to the historicity of spatialitv implies that both material forces and intellectual perspectives or representations interact in a dominant set of practices or hegemony to produce the spatiality of power predominant within a given historical era. But each spatial model also has a synchronic validity in the sense that political power in any epoch can never be totally reduced to any one of them. In a sense equivalent to Karl Polanyi's discussion of market society in terms of the emergence of market exchange at the expense of reciprocity and redistribution as principies of economic integration, as one model comes to predominate others are not so much eclipsed as placed into subordinate or emerging roles. The models offer, then, not only a way of historicizing political power but also of accounting for the complexity of the spatiality of power during any particular hstorcal epoch (Figure 1).
1. Ensemble of worlds

an
me

to , .e.
lCe

hn
rne atal.,
oeit

2. Field of forees

lute e of and vior


ring

3. Hlerarchlcal network

Is r
into
.ork,

ving ught and

4. World soclety

hich ntral
.tion,

vorks Figura 1

17

In the model of an ensemble of worlds,. human groups live in separate cultural areas or civilizations with limited communication and interaction between them. Each area in this model has a sense of a profound difference beyond its own boundaries without any conception of the particular character of the others. Communal forms of social construction take place within a territorial setting of permanent settlement with flows of migrants and seasonal movements but with fuzzy exterior boundaries. Time is cyclical or seasonal with dynasties and seasons replacing one another in natural sequence. Political power is Iargelv-internallv oriented and directed towards dynastic maintenance and internal order. Its spatiality rests on a strongly physcal conception of space as distance to be overcome or circulation to be managed. In contrast, is the geopolitical model of states in a field of forces. It revolves around rigidly defined territorial units in whch each state can gain power only at the expense of others and each has total control over its own territory. It is akin to a field of forces in mechanics in which the states exert force on one another and the outcome of the mechanical con test depends on the populations and resources each can bring to bear. Success also depends on creating blocs of allies or clients and identifying s atial points of weakness and vulnerability in the situation of one's adversaries. All of the attributes of politics, such as rights, representation, legitimacy and citizenship, are restricted to the territories of individual states. The presumption is that the realm of geopolitics is beyond such concerns. Force and the potential use of force rule supreme beyond state boundaries. Time is ordered on a rational global basis so the trains can run on time, workers can get to work on time and military forces can coordina te their activities. The dominant spatiality, therefore, is that of state-territorialitv, in which political boundaries provide the containers for the majority of social, economic and political activities. Political elites are state elites and they mimic one another's discourse and practices. Third on the list of models is that of the hierarchical network. This is the spatial structure of a world-economy in which cores, peripheries and serni-peripheries are linked together by flows of goods, people and investment. Transactions based largely on market exchange produce patterns of uneven development as flows move wealth through networks of trade and communication producing regional concentrations of relative wealth and poverty. At the local scale, particularly that of urban centers, hinterlands are drawn into connection with a larger world which has be come progressively more planetary in geographical scope over the past five-hundred years. Political power is a function of where in the hierarchy of sites fram global centers to rural peripheries a place is located. Time is organized by the geographical scope and temporal rhythm of financial and economic transactions. The spatiality is of spatial networks joining together a hierarchy of nodes and areas which are connected by flows of people, goods, capital and information. Today, such networks are particularly important in linking together the city-regions which constitute the nodes around which the global economy is increasingly organized. In some circumstances, networks can develop a reticular form in which there is no clear center or hierarchical structure. This is the case, for example, with the networks implicit in some business models, such as strategic alliances, in which partnership over space rather than predominance between one node and the others prevails and, more notoriously, in some global terrorist and criminal networks.

18

,
J

f If
e
n

ir

h Id
se al re :ly th of rs,
ne

The fourth, and final, model is that of the integrated world society. This conforms to the humanistic ideal of a world in which cultural community, political identity and economic integration are all structured at a global scale. But it also reflects the increased perception of common global problems (such as environmental ones) that do not respect state borders, the futility of armed inter-state conflict in the presence of nuclear weapons and the advantages of defense over offense in modern warfare, and the growth of an international public opinion. This model privileges global scale communication based on networks among multiple actors that are relatively unhierarchical or reticular and more or less dense depending upon the volition of actors themselves. The sproutlike character of these connections leads some to see them as (in a term popularized by Gilles Deleuze) somewhat like the rhizomes of certain plants that spread by casting out shoots in multiple but unpredictable directions. Time and space are both defined by the spontaneous and reciprocal timing and spacing of human activities. Real and virtual spaces become indistinguishable. This model obviously has a strong utopian element to it but does also reflect some emergent properties of the more interconnected world that is presently in construction. In the contemporary world there is evidence for the effective co-presence of each of these models with the former territorial models somewhat in eclipse and the latter network models somewhat in resurgence after a one hundred-year period in which the field of forces model was pre-erninent (if hardly exclusive). If the trend towards regional separatism within existing states portends a fragmentation that can reinforce the field of forces model as new states emerge, then economic globalization and global cultural unification work to reinforce the hierarchical network and integrated world society models. At the same time movement towards political-economic unification (as in the European Un ion) and the development of cultural movements with a strong territorial element (as with Islamic integralist movements) tend to create pressures for the reassertion of an ensemble of worlds. Historically, however, there has been a movement from one to another model as a hegemonic or directing elemento In this spirit 1 would propose a theoretical scheme drawing from the work of Durand et al. in which, first of all, the ensemble of worlds- model slowly gave way to the field of forces- model around 1500 AD as the European state system came into existence (Figure 2).

rrs, to md tial by

arlv
md irks
ure.

lels,
mce

1500

1945

j.
'O~

j.

orist

Figura 2
Based upon: Durand et
al.,

.. ~
'5

&~

~
'O

11

Le monde. 18.

19

But since then the hegemonic influence of the dfferent models has tended to vary geographically, so that by the nineteenth century a balance-of-power hegemony between territorial states was dominant in Europe. Imperial hegemonies, however, were uppermost in much of the rest of the world save for the public goods hegemony exercised by Britain through its roles as upholder of the gold standard and entrept in a multilateral trading system that unified an emerging world economy. As this model was establishing its dominance, the modern hierarchical network also began its rise in and around the framework provided by the state system. Under European colonialism the part of the world in which states recognized one another as legitima te actors (what is now often called the Global North) was divorced from the regions in which such status was denied. With Independence after the Second World War numerous new states, irrespective of their relative political efficacy, spread to cover most of the world's land area. But many of these new states were either clients of the United States or the Soviet Union - within two sphere-of-influence hegemonies - or located in violent zones of conflict between them. In the field-of-forces, therefore, these were hardly equal forces. Since 1945 the hierarchical-network model has become more and more central to the distrbution of political power as a result of the increased penetration of state territories by global trade, population and investment flows under an increasingly unilateral US hegemony. This is now a truly planetary hegemony - the first in history - both with respect to its potential geographical scope and to the range of ts functional influence, based on the tenets of marketplace society, even as its primary agent, the United States, may itself become less central to it. With the end of the Cold War, which had produced an important reinstatement of the field of forces model among the most powerful states, the hierarchical network model is in the ascendancy with signs of the beginning of a trend towards an integrated world- society model. But this is as yet very much in its infancy. This framework is, of course, only suggestive of longterm tendencies. What it does provide is a sense of the historical spatiality of political power, associated in dfferent epochs with different dominant modes of spatiality and the co-presence of others. Ideal-types are a way of thinking about the world, not to be used as a substitute for its actual complexities at any moment in any place. Territoriality as a feature within these models can be judged theoretically as having a number of different origins or sources. These would include the following: (1) as a result of explicit territorial strategizing to devolve administrative functions but maintain central control (Sack, 1986); (2) as a secondary result ofresolving the dilemmas facing social groups in delivering public goods (as in Michael Mann's (1984) sociology of territory); (3) as an expedient facilitating coordination between capitalists who are otherwise in competition with one another (as in Marxist theories of the state): (4) as the focus of one strategy among several of govemmentality (as in Michel Foucault's wrtngs): 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 political identity (Agnew, 2003)). Whatever its social origins, territoriality is put into practice in a number of dfferent if often complementary ways: (1) by popular acceptance of classifications of space (e.g. 'ours' versus 'yours'); (2) through communication of a sense of place (where territorial markers and borders evoke meanings); and (3) byenforcing control over space (by barrier construction, surveillance, policing, and judicial review). 20

Territory and Statehood


Unfortunatelv, the tendency to restrict spatiality to territoriality and to associa te territoriality only with statehood is not only profoundly mistaken but also widespread. It is worth reflecting a little on how this has happened. The territorial state is a highly specific historical entity. It initially arose in Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Since that time, poltical power has come to be seen as inherently territorial because statehood is seen as inherently territorial. From this viewpoint, politics thus take place only within 'the institutions and the spatial envelope of the state as the exclusive governor of a definite territory. We also identify political territory with social space, perceiving countries as state-societies(Hirst, 2005: 27). The process of state formation has always had two crucial attributes. One is exclusivity. All of the political entities (the Roman Catholic Church, cirv-states, etc.) that could not achieve a reasonable semblance of sovereignty over a contiguous territory have been delegitimized as major poltical actors. The second is mutual recognition. The power of states has rested to a considerable extent on the recognition each state receives from the others by means of non-nterference in their so-called internal affairs. Together these attributes have created a world in which there can be no territory without a state and vice versa. In this way, territory has come to underpin both nationalsm and representative democracy, both of which depend critically on restricting poltical membership by homeland and address, respectively. More abstractlv, in modern political theory control over a relatively modest territory has long been seen as the primary solution to the 'security dilemma:' to offer protection to populations from the threats of anarchy (disorder), on the one hand, and hierarchy (distant rule and subordnaton), on the other. A major problem has been to define what is meant by 'modest' size. To Montesquieu (1949: 122), the Enlightenment philosopher, different size territories inevitably have different political forms: 'It is, therefore, the natural property of small states to be governed as a republc, of middling ones to be subject to a monarch, and of large empires to be swayed by a despotic prince'. Earlv modern Europe offered propitious circumstances for the emergence of a fragmented political system primarily because of its topographical divisions. Montesquieu (1949: 151-162) further notes, however, that popular representation allows for the territorial extension of republcan government. The founders of the United States added to this by trying to balance between centralizing certain security functions, on one side, and retaining local controls over many other functions, on the other (Deudney, 2004). The recent history of the European Union can be thought of in similar terms (Milward, 2005).

Beyond Spatiality as Territorialirv


a) Spatial Interaction

Human activities in the world, however, have never conformed entirely to spaces defined by proximity as provided by state territory. In this context, I wish to make two related points. First of all, and increasngly, as physical distance proves less of a barrier to movement because of technological change and the removal of territorially-based regulative barriers to trade and investment, spatial interaction between separated 21

nodes across networks is an increasingly important mechanism of geographical sorting and differentiation (Durand et al., 1992). Sometimes posed today in terms of a world of flows versus a world of territories, ths is perhaps better thought of in terrns of territories and/or networks of flows rather than one versus the other, against the claims of both territorialism and flat ontology. Territories and networks exist relationally rather then mutually exclusively. If territorial regulation is all about tying flows to places, territories have never been zero-sum entities in which the sharing of power or the existence of external linkages totally undermines their capacity to regulate territorially. If at one time territorial states did severely limit the local powers of transterritorial agencies, that this is no longer the case does not signify that the states have lost all of their powers: -Territory still matters. States remain the most effective governors of populations. (... ) The powers to exclude, to tax, and to define political rights are those over which states acquired a monopoly in the seventeenth century. They remain the essentials of state power and explain why state sovereignty survives today and why it is indispensable to the international order- (Hirst, 2005: 45). Nevertheless, notwithstanding a certain ambiguity inherent in the terms, in a world in which evidence for both reinforced territorialization (e.g. the Israel-Palestine Separation Barrier) and de-zre-territorialzation (e.g. the European Union Schengen passport zone) is not hard to come by, their usage suggests a dynamism to the forms of territories and territorialities and a challenge from other spatialities of power that some have be en all too willing to deny. In a 2005 article on sovereignty and territory I have developed this argument at some length (Agnew, 2005b). I start from the proposition that modern political theory tends to understand geography entirely as territorial: the world is divided up into contiguous spatial units with the territorial state as the basic building block from which other territorial units (such as alliances, spheres of influence, empires, etc.) derive or develop. This is the reason why much of the speculation about the decline of the state- or soveregnty at bay is posed as the end of geography. Yet, the historical record suggests that there is no necessity for polities to be organized territorially. As Hendrik Spruyt (1994: 34) claims, If politics is about rule, the modern state is verily unique, for it claims sovereignty and territoriality. It is sovereign in that it claims final authority and recognizes no hgher source of jurisdiction. It is territorial in that rule is defined as exclusive authority over a fixed territorial space. The criterion for determining where claims to sovereign jurisdiction begin or end is thus a purely geographic one. Mutually recognized borders delimit spheres of jurisdiction. Territorialiry, the use of territory for political, social, and economic ends, is in fact, as I mentioned previously, a strategy that has developed more in some historical contexts than in othets. Thus, the territorial state as it is known to contemporary political theory developed initiallv in early modern Europe with the retreat of non-territorial dynastic systems of rule and the transfer of sovereignty from the personhood of monarchs to discrete national populations. That modern state sovereignty as usually construed did not occur overnight following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is now well established. Territorialization of political authority was further enhanced by the development of mercantilist economies and, later, by an industrial capitalism that emphasized capturing powerful contiguous positive externalities from exponential dstance-decay declines in transportation costs and from the clustering of external 22

f
)

e e e 11 y. !s
).

.d
le
.n of at

..) ne he ed .rn lat .ia] ion ely ict,

.xts
ical rial chs ued

economies (material mixes, social relations, labor pools, etc.) within national-state boundaries. Absent such conditions, sovereignty -in the sense of the socially constructed practices of political authority- may be exercised non-territoriallv or in scattered pockets connected by flows across space-spanning networks. From this viewpoint, sovereignty can be practiced in networks across space with distributed nodes in places that are either hierarchically arranged or reticular (without a central or directing node). In the former case, authoritv is centralized, whereas in the latter, it is essentially shared across the network. All forms of polity-from hunter-gatherer tribes through nomadic kinship structures to citv-states, territorial states, spheres of influence, alliances, trade pacts, seaborne empires-therefore, occupy some sort of space. What is clear, however, if not widely recognized within contemporary debates about state sovereignty, is that political authority is not necessarily predicated on and defined by strict and fixed territorial boundaries. Two issues are crucial here: that political authority is not restricted to states, and that such authority is thereby not necessarily exclusively territorial. Authority is the legitimate exercise of power. The foundation and attribution of legitimacy to different entities has changed historically. By way of exarnple, the legitimacy of rule by monarchs in the medieval Eurapean order had a different meaning from that of later absolutist rulers and that operating under more recent democratic justifications for state power. In no case, however, has the authority of the state ever be en complete. There have always be en competing sources of authoritv, from the church in the medieval context to international organizations, social movements, businesses, and NGOs today. More specifically, transparency, effcencv, expertise, accountability, and popularity are as much foundations of legitimacy as are nationality and democratic process. Thus, even ostensibly private entities and supranational governments are often accorded as great or even greater authority than are states. Think, for exarnple, of credit rating agencies, charitable organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the Eurapean Union. Using two countries as exarnples, within the United States there is widespread popular suspicion of the efficiency and accountability of the federal government, not just since the rnilitary debacle in Iraq and the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina. This often leads to perhaps excessive faith in the virtue of privatization through corporate networks of what are elsewhere seen as public services such as health careo In Italy, much of the popular enthusiasm for the European Union is driven by the hope that Brussels will ncreasingly supplant Rome as the seat of power most effective in relation to people's everyday lives not so much territorially as in relation to the functional effects in particular place s of European-wide initiatives. .

b) Place-Making

vel]
the :hat

ital
mal

My second point about needing to diminish the overall emphasis on territoriality as if it referred to spatiality tout court in vol ves a rather different focus. This is the significance of the human experience of space reflected at least in English language usage of the word 'place'. In this perspective, space is bracketed, or put to one side, because its abstractness discourages experiential explorations (Casey 2001: 683). In his philosophical rehabilitaton of place, Edward Casey (1997: x) notes how place has been assimilated to space. ( ... ) As a result, place came to be considered a mere

23

'modfcaton' of space (in Locke's revealing term) - a modification that aptlv can be called 'site,' that is, leveled-down, monotonous space for building and other human enterprises(author's emphasis). Casey's goal is to argue for the crucial importance of place in much thinking about community and the public sphere, even though the connections are often not made explicit by the thinkers in question. He wants to make place different from site and space, even though he acknowledges Michel Foucault's point that the modern world is largely one of Leibnizian sites and relations rather than Newtonian absolute spaces (Casey 1997: 298-300). In rethinking space as place, his primary interest lies in phenomenologically or experientially linking places to human selves (also see Entrikiu, 1991; 2001). The central issue is that of being in place differently(Casey 1997: 337) conditioning the various dimensions of selfhood, from the bodily to the psychological, institutional, and architectural. So, though the shape- of place has changed historically, it is now no mere container but, rather, a taking place, its rediscovery and naming as such is long overdue. Thus: Despite the seduction of endless space (and the allure of serial time), place is beginning to escape from its entombment in the cultural and philosophical underworld of the modern West (Casey 1997: 339). Symptomatic of the conceptual separation of space and place are the three dominant meanings that geographical place has acquired in writing that invokes either space or place (Agnew, 1987; 1989; 1993). Each meaning tends to assimilate place to one or the other end of a continuum running from nomothetic (generalized) space at one end to idiographic (particularistic) place at the other, The first is place as location or a site in space where an activity or object is located and which relates to other sites or locations beca use of interaction and movement between them. A city or other settlernent is often thought of this way. Somewhere in between, and second, is the view of place as locale or setting where everyday-life activities take place. Here the location is no me re address but the where of social life and environmental transformation. Examples would be such settings from everyday life as workplaces, homes, shopping malls, churches, etc. The third is place as sense of place or identification with a place as a unique communiry, landscape, and moral order. In this construction, every place is particular and, thus, singular. A strong sense of belongng to a place, either consciously or as shown through everyday behavior such as participating in place-related affairs, would be indicative of sense of place. Attempts at putting space and place together must necessarily try to bring at least two of these various meanings of geographical place together. Currently, there are four main ways in the Anglo-American and French literature in which this task has been approached: the humanist or agencv-based (e.g. Sack, 1997), the neo-Marxist (e.g. Lefebvre, 1991), the feminist (e.g. Massey ,1994), and the contextualist-performative (e.g. Thrift, 1999). Each of these rejects the either/or logic in relation to space and place that has characterized most geographic and social thought from the seventeenth century 10 the present (Agnew, 2005a). For the frst, and one with which 1 am most in sympathy, the focus lies in relating location and locale to sense of place through the experiences of human beings as agents. In one of the most sophisticated statements of this perspective, Robert Sack (1997: 58) provides the essential thrust when he writes that his framework draws on the geographical experiences of place, space, home, and world which people use in their lives to integrate forces, perspectives, and selves. From this point of view: 24

Place implies space, and each home is a place in space. Space is a property of the natural world, but it can be experienced. From the perspective of experience, place differs from space in terms of familiarity and time. A place requires human agency, is something that may take time to know, and a home especially so. As we move along the earth we pass from one place to another. But if we move quickly the places blur; we lose track of their qualities, and they may coalesce into the sense that we are moving through space. This can happen even in my own home. IfI am hardly there and do not attend to its contents, it may seem unfamiliar to me, more like a part of space than a place (Sack 1997: 16). In this frame of reference, cultural differences, for example, emerge beca use of place-based experiences and human agency but also because places are never separa te but always part of larger sets of places across which differences are more or less pronounced depending on the perrneability of boundaries between places as people experience thern. Places are woven together through space by movement and the network ties that produce places as changing constellations of human commitments, capacities, and strategies. Place s are invariably parts of spaces and spaces provide the resources and the frames of reference in which place s are made. In a recent research project on ltalian electoral politics since the late 1980s, 1 and my colleague Michael Shin (2008) have made the case for contexts of place and time in accounting for what has transpired nationally in terms of the rise and fall of the various political groupings. We argue that these are not best thought of as invariably regional, local, or national although they frequently have elements of one, several, or all. Rather, they are best considered as always located somewhere, with some contexts more stretched over space (such as means of mass communication and the spatial division of labor) and others more localized (school, workplace, and residential interactions). The balance of influence on political choices between and among the stretched and more local contextual processes can be expected to change over time, giving rise to subsequent shifts in political outlooks and affiliations. So, for example, as foreign companies introduce branch plants, trade unions must negotiate new work practices, which, in turn, erode long-accepted views of the roles of managers and employees. In due course, this configuration of contextual changes can give an opening to a new political party or a redefined old one that upsets established political affiliations. But changes must always fit into existing cultural templates that often show amazing resilience as well as adaptation. Doreen Massey (1999: 22) puts the overall point the best when she writes: -This is a notion of place where specificity (local uniqueness, a sense of place) derives not from some mythical internal roots nor from a history of isolation - now to be disrupted by globalization - but precisely from the absolute particularity of the mixture of influences found together there. We have uscd the term place, therefore, to capture the mediating role of such geographically located milieux. What we mean by this word are the settings in which people find thernselves on a regular basis in their daily lives where many contexts come together and with which they may identify. Or, as 1 have made the point previously (Agnew, 2002: 21): places are the cultural settings where localized and geographically wide-ranging socioeconomic processes that condition actions of one sort or another are jointly mediated, Although there must be places, therefore, there need nor be this particular place. So, if in this case, individual persons are in the end the agents of politics, their agency and the particular forms it takes flow from the social stimuli, political imaginations, and yardsticks of judgment they acquire in the ever-evolving

25

social webs in which they are necessarily enmeshed and which intersect acrass space in particular places. Mair (2006: 44) suggests that as party affiliations have weakened over the past thirty years in most European countries, voting behavior is increasingly contingent. Fram our perspective, this means that geographical patterns of turnout and affiliation will be come more unstable even as they often still respond to placebased if evolving norms of participation and differing relative attraction to the offerings of different parties. Maps of the results fram the praportional representation parts of the 2001 and 2006 elections to the ltalian Chamber of Deputies show something of this geographical dynamic (Figure 3 y 3a).

LN arul 1:1

mIl LN rlIJ Fl g Fl und

i.eu

rzJ
U

D Znnu
AN

nl~".1

I.d .md I\~

A . and

rt
I

LJ.

':-.1."

2001

Figura 3

26

~LN

anel Fl LN

[1]]]

rAll Fl Q Fl
f f

and Left

Zona rossa and AN

rz.;;!iJ Left
DAN DAN

and Fl

O Neutral

2006

Figura3a

Conc1usion Clearly, there are important cultural and historical dimensions to both practices and theories of spatiality and territoriality. Churches and polities (states, empires, federations, etc.) have been the most important users of terrirorialiry. Some churches (such as the Roman Catholic Church) and some states (such as the United States) have more complex and formally hierarchical territorialities than do others. Today, transnational and global businesses erect territorial hierarchies that cut across existing

27

poli tic al ones. So, even as some uses of territoriality attenuate or even fade away, others emerge. Thougt~arying in precise form and complexity, thl~fore, territoriality seems always to be with us as an important strategy for organizing human activities even as it must be considered alongside other types of spatiality, such as interaction across space and place-rnaking, that both direct and give agency to human social existence. But as the modes of analysis and empirical examples from my recent publications 1 have introduced today suggest, we must the confusion of territoriality with spatiality, or how space is defined and used socially, and be much clearer in our use of spatial terminology such as territory, space and place.

~'eJ~r

References
Agnew, J. A. 1987. Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society. London: Allen and Unwin. 1989. -The devaluaton of place in social science. In: J. Agnew and J. Duncan ----:--:(eds.). The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Imaginations. London: Unwin Hyman. Pp. 9-29. 1993. Representing space: space, scale and culture in social science. In: J. --=-Duncan and D. Ley (eds.). Place/CultureIRepresentation. London: Routledge. Pp. 251-27l. 1994. The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy 1: 53-80. ___ 2002. Place and Politics in Modern haly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. _-:::--;- 2003. Ierritorialiry and political identiry in Europe. In: M. Berezin and M. Schain (eds.). Europe without borders: remapPing territory, citizenship, and identity in a transnational age. Baltimore: [ohns Hopkins University Press. Pp. 319-342. ______ 2005a. Space-place. In: P. Cloke and R. Johnston (eds.). Spaces of Geographical Thought. London: Sage. Pp. 81-96. 2005b. Sovereignty regimes: terrirorialiry and state authority in contemporary --world politics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95 (2): 437-46l. Badie, B. 1995. La fin des tettitoues. Paris: Fayard. Barth, E 1969. Introduction. In: E Barth (ed.). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London: Allen and Unwin. Pp. 9-38. Bonnemaison, J. 1996. Les fondements gographique d'une identit: l'arcipel du Vanuatu. Paris: ORSTOM. Buchanan, A. and M. Moore (eds.) 2003. States, nations, and borders: the ethics o/ making boundaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Casey, E. S. 1997. The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 2001. Between geography and philosophy: what does it mean to be in the --:--place-world?. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (4): 683-693. Deudney, D. 2004. Publius before Kant: federal-re publican security and democratic peace. European }ournal of International Relations 10: 315-56. Durand, M-E, J Lvy and D. Retaill 1992. Le monde: espaces et systmes. Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques and Dalloz.

28

Entrikin, ___

J.

N. 1991. The Betweenness

of Place: Towards a Geography

of Modernity.

Baltirnore:

of American Geographers 91 (4): 694-697. Hirst, P. 2005. Space and power: politics, war and architecture. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. Lechner, F 1991. Simmel on social space. Theory, Culture & Society 8: 195-201. Mair, P. 2006. Ruling the void: the hollowing ofWestem democracy. New Left Review 42: 25-51. Mann, M. 1984. On the autonomous power of the state: its origns, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology 25: 185-213. Marston, S., J. P. Jones and K. Woodward 2005. Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 30: 416-32. Massey, D. 1994. Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.

Johns Hopkins University Press. 2001. Hiding places. Annals of the Association

1999. Power-Geometries and the Politics of Space-Time. Heidelberg: University --c;r-Heidelberg, Department of Geography, Hettner Lectures 2. Milward, A. 2005. Review article: the European Union as a superstate. International History Review 27: 90-105.
Montesquieu, c.L. 1949 [1748]. The sPirit of the laws. New York: Hafner. Sack, R. D. 1986. Human territoriality: us theory and history. Carnbridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Hamo Geographicus. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Scivoletto, A. 1983. Sociologa del territorio: tra scienza e utopia. Milan: Franco Angeli. Shin, M. E. and J. A. Agnew 2008. Berlusconi's ltaly: maPPing contemporary Italian politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Spruyt, H. 1994. The sovereign state and us competitors: An analysis of systems change Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Storper, M. 1997. Regional economies as relational assets. In: R. Lee and J. Wills (eds.). Geographies of Economies. London: Amold. Pp. 248-258. Thrft, N. 1999. Steps to an ecology of place. In: D. Massey, J. Allen, and P. Sarre (eds.). Human Geography Today. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pp. 295-323.

29