Territory territories are the institutionalized ones. One can



and function

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


is defined as the following:


o   An area of land under the
jurisdiction of a ruler or state.

o   ‘the government was prepared to
give up the nuclear weapons on its territory’


o   Zoology An area defended by an
animal or group of animals against others of the same sex or species.


o   An area defended by a team or
player in a game or sport.


o   An area in which one has certain
rights or for which one has responsibility with regard to a particular type of


o   Mass noun, with adjective or noun
modifier Land with a specified characteristic.

o   ‘woodland territory’


o   (Especially in the US, Canada, or
Australia) an organized division of a country that is not yet admitted to the
full rights of a state.


o   An area of knowledge, activity, or


The origin of the word base Latin word
‘territorium’ which is used in reference to land or a district, has 2
etymological theories. According to the first, the term comes from the latin
word ‘terra’ (dry land) + orium, the suffic denoting place. The second theory
draws the origin to territorium derived instead from ‘t?rrere’­­­ (to
frighten). When the second theory is drawn out, a territory is a place from
which people are warned off’ which unlike the 1st theory places a
more functional purpose for territories.


­The ethological conception draws our attention
to two important points. The first point is that territory has fundamentally to
do with functions.7 For
both animals and the human being, these functions are usually described as defence,
control, reproduction, and access to resources. The second point is that
territory is an imagined entity, a space that
is carved out, excerpted and circumscribed in view of a set of tasks to carry
out. The territorial redux is an imaginative mechanism whereby someone is
recognized as an intruder or insider (or other equivalent qualification) to
one’s territory.


One of the main difficulties in talking about
territory is that this concept is transversal to several different
disciplines—ranging macro to micro, from geography to sociology, from ethology,
to ecology, from anthropology to law—all of which have their own idiosyncratic
definition. Which is further more interesting because through the process
defining what each disciple regards as its definition of territory, each
discipline creates respective boundaries of their interpretations of the
concept. ‘the tool one uses to grasp the object is part of the very object one tries
to seize’ Andrea Brighenti, 2006


continues define two pivotal categories to appreciate the relational features
of territory are scale and visibility. Almost all territories can be classified
along these two variables. Interestingly, while the rule of thumb associates
larger scale with higher visibility, this correlation is not always valid.
Rather than simply large-scale ones, the most visible territories are the
institutionalized ones. One can consider for instance the following territories:
the nation-state, the city and its functional places, the interpersonal sphere,
the body, and the psyche.


Relationship, rather than space, is suggested
to be at the conceptual core of territory, so that spatial and non-spatial
territories can be seen as superimposed one onto the other and endowed with
multiple connections.

Only once relations among subjects, rather than
space, are put at the conceptual core of territory, it becomes possible to
capture the ways in which spatial and non-spatial territories are superimposed
one onto the other and endowed with multiple reciprocal connections

, according to different scales and degrees of
visibility. only the most visible ones are recognized as
proper territories.

Territory is explored in the most in Biology, and
Sociology. In the former the explored concept is territoriality which is
expressed as a instinctive act (in reference to animal behaviour) the ability to react in aggressive and defensive
patterns under given circumstances existing as a biological imperative, this hypothesis reached in
Robert Ardreys’ ‘book ‘The Territorial Imperative where he elucidate the role
that inherited evolutionary instinct, particularly the territorial imperative
plats in human society in the phenomena such as property ownership and nation
building.  The problem with Ardreys is he makes
aggressiveness the basis of the terroroty. ‘DG. They sued the understanding of
terriry advanced by etholisht Jakob von Uexkull ot help shift the focus away
from a mechanistic, functional understanding of life onto a more expressive one


Sociologist Robert David Sack pushes the idea a step further and say that territorially is instinctual and
favours that at the core of territoriality is strategy and defines
territoriality as “the attempt by an individual or group to affect,
influence or control people, phenomena and relationships, by delimiting and
asserting control over a geographic area.”8 By
making strategy a central concern, Sack frames the question of territory as
inherently political. By pointing
out that territories may exist in degrees, and that they can be switched on and
off according to strategic aims, Sack brought agency to
the foreground of the concept.

The biologist Jakob von Uexküll was probably the first to
point out that territory appears as a subjective and aesthetic production which
cannot be inferred from mere characteristics of any objective physical
environment.4 in…Delueze and Guartti refer to von Uexkulls
to as  “”A territory materalizs
when milieu components cease to be directional and functional to become
dimensional and expressive. Functions do not explain the territory but
presuppose it.” Delueze & Guarttari.

For him territory refers to a specific ‘milieu’ that
cannot be serpared from the living thing occupying and creating the milieu, so
that the meaning of the milieu is affective. The territory is marked by indexes
that ”may be components taken from any of the miliues: materials, organic
products, skin or membrane states, energy sources, action perception
condestate.” Delueze and guattai. The terroitrialising elements resides ‘in the
becoming expressive of ryhtim and melody in other words, in emergence of proper
qualities (colour, odour, sound, sillhouete..) Art?

Once a
shift from an essentialist and objectivist to an operational and interactional
imagination of territory is made, the activity of boundary-drawing can be
investigated through a series of questions proposed by Andrea Brighenti her
essay. : 

Who is

How is the
drawing made? 

What kind
of drawing is being made? 

Why is the
drawing being made? 






is regarded as an activity of boundary-drawing and as a process which creates
pre-assigned relational positions a way of social sorting” Andrea Brighenti,


movement of Territorialisation is act of organizing as a territory, a process
of reordering physical or virtual relationships “Territorialisation presupposes
an appropriation of a territory that can take several forms”. This appropriation
could easily be a demarcated territory of land remarked due to new ownership or
intuitive territories, such as objects, rituals, and culture. It could be the formation
of an idea or a religion, the classification of a relationship, the
interconnectivity of set of relations or the acknowledgement of a situation one
finds them in. A defined boundary, threshold or limit is the single commonality
but within the playground of this condition, territorialisation can range from
a mapped geographical set of physical space to existing in the realm of the
meta-physics and ephemeral abstraction.


Territory-drawing is therefore
a essential way of manufacturing relations among human beings mediated by
places, spaces, objects, and every type of signs and symbols. Ultimately, when
based on signs and symbols, territory need not be a space.


A similar point was
made by the Canadian Sociologist Erving Goffman whose major areas of study included
the sociology of everyday life through social interaction, social construction
of self and social organisation of experience. In ‘Relations in public’ (Goffman,
1971) he proposes that all territories can be divided into categories depending
on their organisation and hypothesized a link between each kind of territory
and its temporal extension. He identified three types of territory—fixed
territories, situational territories and egocentric territories.

Fixed Territories:
Which have a geographical extension and to which the person can claim formal
legitimate title. One example might be real estate or physical property.


Territories: Confined to specific locations and which the person may make his
or her property for a limited period of time thus temporally appropriating a
space. These spaces then to be public spaces like restaurants, a bench in a
park or desk in libraries this type of territorialisation is linked with the
type of activity that is considered to be the norm in that given context.  


Territories: Which unlike the pervious types is completely moveable and is
carried about by a person. This category is further subdivided into 8 subtypes:
‘The personal space’, ‘The stall’, use space, turn, Sheath, Possessional
territory, informational territory, conversational preserve.


Goffman then turns
his attention to ways of violating these territories an idea he called
‘Modalities of violation’ ways of engaging in territorial offense whether that
may be moving too close, actual defilement or contamination. These ideas spring
up in Deleuze
and Guattaris reconfiguration of lacnian ‘territorialisation’. They propose is
that the subject is exposed to new organisations; principal insight being:
deterritorlisation shatters the subject. When a boundary is temporally
penetrated or deconstructed to dislocate the set of relations that constitute
as the territory.





I'm Victor!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out