Jordan Branch. 2011

Mapping the Sovereign State: Cartographic Technology, Political Authority, and Systemic Change By Jordan Nathaniel Branch A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Steven Weber, Chair Professor Christopher Ansell Professor Ron E. Hassner Professor Kate O’Neill Spring 2011 Mapping the Sovereign State: Cartographic Technology, Political Authority, and Systemic Change © 2011 by Jordan Nathaniel Branch Abstract Mapping the Sovereign State: Cartographic Technology, Political Authority, and Systemic Change by Jordan Nathaniel Branch Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Steven Weber, Chair How did modern territorial states come to replace earlier forms of organization, defined by a wide variety of territorial and non-territorial forms of authority? Answering this question can help to explain both where our international political system came from and where it might be going. In this dissertation, I argue that the use of new mapping technologies in early modern Europe was a fundamental driver of these monumental political developments. New cartographic tools altered how political actors understood political space, authority, and organization, reducing the wide variety of medieval political forms down to the unique territorial form of the sovereign state. Mapping and its use was necessary—though not sufficient—to drive the complex process leading to our world of territorial states. Using evidence from the history of cartography, peace treaties, and political practices, I argue that early modern mapping changed the fundamental framework of political interaction. Authority structures not depicted on maps were ignored or actively renounced in favor of those that were, leading to the implementation of linear boundaries between states and centralized territorial rule within them. These fundamental characteristics of modern statehood appeared first in the representational space of maps and only subsequently in political practices on the ground. My exploration of this relationship reveals that maps and their depictions were causal, not epiphenomenal, to the transformation of politics. The role of cartography in the formation of modern states is made evident when depictions in maps are compared against actual boundary practices and the language of peace treaties. Clear linear divisions between territorial political units, while pervading maps since the sixteenth century, did not become common in practice until late in the eighteenth century. For their part, mapmakers never intended to reshape political ideas and structures. Rather, their choice to depict the world as composed of homogenous political territories was independent of politics. It was driven by the dual incentives of a commercial market for aesthetically pleasing printed maps and the underlying geometric 1 structure of early-modern cartography that is provided by the globe-spanning grid of latitude and longitude. Thus, by linking developments in cartography to political ideas and outcomes, my dissertation yields an analysis of the complex relation between technological and political change that acknowledges the importance of both material and ideational factors to the constitution of political institutions such as the state and the international system. My historical case also yields implications for how we might better understand transformative political change, particularly in today’s globalizing international system. 2 For my parents, Eren and Watson Branch i Table of Contents Acknowledgements iii 1. Introduction 1 2. Systemic Change, Sovereignty, and International Relations 6 3. The Transformation of International Politics: Medieval to Modern 28 4. The “Cartographic Revolution” 67 5. Ideational Effects of Cartography I: Mapping and the View of Space 89 6. Ideational Effects of Cartography II: Mapping, Territory, and Sovereignty 116 7. The Implementation of Territorial Exclusivity 155 8. Conclusion: Implications for Contemporary Change 188 References 209 ii Acknowledgements Although this project has involved a lot of time working alone, with piles and piles of books, there is absolutely no way I could have completed it without the help of a large number of people. First is my dissertation committee: Steve Weber, Chris Ansell, Ron Hassner, and Kate O’Neill. Nick Ziegler also served as a member of my prospectus committee, helping to get this project off the ground. Chris Ansell has been instrumental, from the very beginning of this project, in helping me negotiate the back-and-forth between extreme breadth and complexity and making a coherent and defensible argument. Our many conversations have helped me find that happy middle ground. Ron Hassner I only managed to bring on board a bit later in the process, but his enthusiasm and help have been amazing. Who else, after all, combines such a depth of knowledge about our field, a seemingly limitless willingness to help, and an impressive collection of antique maps? Kate O’Neill has been the best possible “outside” committee member one could ask for: always willing to meet, even after my extended periods AWOL, and providing extremely useful feedback in spite of facing the monumental task of reading this entire dissertation in one go, rather than in a more civilized piecemeal fashion. I could not have asked for a better dissertation chair than Steve Weber. From the very beginning, Steve has provided me with exactly the type of guidance I need: allowing me the freedom to pursue whatever wild ideas come up, but keeping my historical study grounded in the key issues of International Relations and helping me to find the implications for global political issues today. Steve has been the type of advisor I could call to ask, literally, about how to phrase specific parts of a response letter for an article revision. This kind of support is priceless. I cannot express how excited I am that our discussions and work together will not end with the filing of this dissertation. Second, one simply cannot get through this experience without the support, feedback, and companionship of the graduate student community. So many members of my entering cohort deserve my thanks, for making classes, exam preparations, and everything else that could make graduate school a burden into nothing but positive experiences. Jessica Rich and Naomi Choi deserve special mention, as my close friends who have always put up with me and as colleagues who have always given me honest and supportive feedback on my work. In addition, the broader International Relations community at Berkeley, including the numerous students and faculty affiliated with the Institute for International Studies, has always provided a stimulating environment for exchanging ideas and papers—even for someone like me, who has often been at the peripheries of traditional IR. Additionally, this project has benefited from the extensive pushing, prodding, and questioning that I have faced at a number of venues outside of Berkeley, when I have presented different pieces of this dissertation at conferences and at other universities. When you start talking about maps, people tend to get interested, and I have always benefited from these extraordinarily helpful comments, questions, and suggestions. This also includes the extensive and valuable feedback from both reviewers and editors at International Organization and the European Journal of International Relations , where some of this dissertation’s arguments have now been published. These processes have made this final version significantly stronger. iii Finally, I have to thank the people who have truly made it possible for me to make it this far. Helen Lee, whom I had the unbelievable fortune to meet in a graduate seminar on research methods (of all places!), gives me the kind of support and encouragement that one can only dream of. I cannot imagine a better teammate or partner in crime. My brother Adam Branch—a big brother in every way possible—has played such an instrumental role in this that it is hard to describe. Leading by example, Adam first showed me that graduate studies in political science could be fun; then, right before I began at Berkeley he gave me a copy of Hendrik Spruyt’s The Sovereign State and Its Competitors —guiding me toward questions that I continue to find fascinating. Throughout my time at Berkeley, Adam has read and helped improve everything I have sent him, and his visits here over the years have always been a highlight of my time in the Berkeley “sky boat.” My parents, of course, deserve more gratitude than I can offer. Their support—of every type one can imagine—has always been beyond measure. Who else gets to have a crack editing team on call, anytime and for any piece of work, from cover letters to five- hundred pages of raw dissertation? Their example and love continues to keep me going, every day. This dissertation is dedicated to them. iv Chapter 1 Introduction Then sent he [King William] his men over all England into each shire; commissioning them to find out “How many hundreds of hides were in the shire, what land the king himself had, and what stock upon the land; or, what dues he ought to have by the year from the shire.” Also he commissioned them to record in writing, “How much land his archbishops had, and his diocesan bishops, and his abbots, and his earls;” and though I may be prolix and tedious, “What, or how much, each man had, who was an occupier of land in England, either in land or in stock, and how much money it were worth.” . And all the recorded particulars were afterwards brought to him. – Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, late eleventh century 1 Give me a map; then let me see how much Is left for me to conquer all the world, – Tamburlaine the Great, Christopher Marlowe, c.1588 These two passages illustrate contrasting ways of conceptualizing political rule: as a claim over diverse persons, resources, and locations, or as a claim to space as represented on a map.

Load more