Progress in Human Geography http://phg.sagepub.com/ Land, terrain, territory Stuart Elden Prog Hum Geogr 2010 34: 799 originally published online 21 April 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0309132510362603 The online version of this article can be found at: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/34/6/799 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Progress in Human Geography can be found at: Email Alerts: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/34/6/799.refs.html Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on December 13, 2010 Article Progress in Human Geography 34(6) 799–817 ª The Author(s) 2010 Land, terrain, territory Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav 10.1177/0309132510362603 phg.sagepub.com Stuart Elden Durham University, UK Abstract This paper outlines a way toward conceptual and historical clarity around the question of territory. The aim is not to define territory, in the sense of a single meaning; but rather to indicate the issues at stake in grasping how it has been understood in different historical and geographical contexts. It does so first by critically interrogating work on territoriality, suggesting that neither the biological nor the social uses of this term are particularly profitable ways to approach the historically more specific category of ‘territory’. Instead, ideas of ‘land’ and ‘terrain’ are examined, suggesting that these political-economic and political-strategic rela- tions are essential to understanding ‘territory’, yet ultimately insufficient. Territory needs to be understood in terms of its relation to space, itself a calculative category that is dependent on the existence of a range of techniques. Ultimately this requires rethinking unproblematic definitions of territory as a ‘bounded space’ or the state as a ‘bordered power container’, because both presuppose the two things that should be most interrogated, space and boundaries. Rather than boundaries being the distinction between place and space, or land or terrain and territory, boundaries are a second-order problem founded upon a particular sense of calculation and concomitant grasp of space. Territory then can be understood as a political technology: it comprises techniques for measuring land and controlling terrain, and measure and control – the technical and the legal – must be thought alongside the economic and strategic. Keywords calculation, land, terrain, territoriality, territory I Introduction territoriality is one of the most neglected in geography’, and that ‘the history of this notion Political theory lacks a sense of territory; remains to be done’.2 It is worth noting that territory lacks a political theory.1 Although a Badie and Raffestin talk of ‘territoriality’ rather central term within political geography and than ‘territory’, a point to which this paper will international relations, the concept of territory return. has been underexamined. Jeffrey Anderson While there are some excellent and important (1992: xiii) notes that ‘politics is rooted in investigations of particular territorial configura- territory ... [but] the spatial dimension of the tions, disputes or issues (see, for example, political economy is so prevalent that it is easily, Sahlins, 1989; Winichakul, 1994; Paasi, 1996; if not frequently, overlooked’. Bertrand Badie (2000: 58) suggests that ‘the principle of territoriality often eludes critics because it seems so obviously universal. It is a decisive compo- Corresponding author: nent in the actions of the state, but it is, neverthe- International Boundaries Research Unit, Department of Geography, Durham University, South Road, Durham less, linked to a historical development’. Claude DH1 3LE, UK Raffestin (1980: 143) argues that ‘the problem of Email: [email protected] 799 Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on December 13, 2010 800 Progress in Human Geography 34(6) J¨onsson et al., 2000), and some valuable help in its methodological principles, but only textbooks on the topic (Storey, 2001; Delaney, tangentially in terms of its focus (Skinner, 2005), there is little that investigates the term 1978; 2002; Pocock, 2009). Important though ‘territory’ conceptually or historically.3 This is, such methods are, the approach employed here in part, because territory is often assumed to be is closer to a genealogical account, of the type self-evident in meaning, allowing the study of its Foucault developed from Nietzsche and particular manifestations – territorial disputes, Heidegger’s work (see Elden, 2001; 2003b). the territory of specific countries, etc – without Genealogy, understood as a historical interroga- theoretical reflection on ‘territory’ itself. Where tion of the conditions of possibility of things it is defined, territory is either assumed to be a being as they are, is helpful for a number of relation that can be understood as an outcome reasons. It makes use of the kinds of textual of territoriality, or simply as a bounded space, and contextual accounts offered by Begriffs- in the way that Giddens (1981: 5–6, 11) geschichte or the Cambridge school; but is described the state as a ‘bordered power con- critical of notions that the production of meaning tainer’ (see also Giddens, 1987).4 In the first, the is reliant on authorial intent. It makes use of the historical dimension is neglected, since it full range of techniques – including etymology, appears that territory exists in all times and semantics, philology and hermeneutics – that places; in the second the conditions of possibility should inform the history of ideas, but pairs them of such a configuration are assumed rather than with an analysis of practices and the workings of examined. Both take the thing that needs power. And it is avowedly political, undertaking explaining as the explanation: the explanandum this work as part of a wider project that aspires to as the explanans. Rather, territory requires the be a ‘history of the present’.6 same kind of historical, philosophical analysis The best general study of territory remains that has been undertaken by Edward Casey Jean Gottmann’s The significance of territory (1997) for another key geographical concept, (Gottmann, 1973; see also Muscara`, 2005). It that of place.5 trades on his earlier book La politique des Etats´ Linda Bishai (2004: 59) suggests that territory et leur geographie´ , where he claims that ‘one ‘may be examined in a similar fashion as cannot conceive a State, a political institution, sovereignty – through conceptual history’. Yet without its spatial definition, its territory’ conceptual history, Begriffsgeschichte, has, with (Gottmann, 1951: 71). Nonetheless, in both partial exceptions, not been turned towards the works he tends to use the term in an undifferen- question of territory explicitly. There is, for tiated historical sense, as a concept used instance, no explicit discussion of territory in the throughout history (see, for example, Gottmann, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe,theHandbuch 1951: 72–73). Thus, while he makes a detailed politisch-sozialer Grundbegriffe in Frankreich, and valuable analysis, he is still perhaps too or the Historisches Worterbuch¨ der Philosophie, willing to see territory existing at a variety of which are the most comprehensive works of the spatial scales and in a variety of historical Begriffsgeschichte approach pioneered by periods. This tends to create an ahistorical and, Reinhart Koselleck (see Ritter et al., 1971–2007; potentially, ageographical analysis. One of the Bruner et al., 1972–97; Reichardt and Schmitt, very few attempts that begins to offer a more 1985–; Koselleck, 2002; 2006). The work of the properly historical account of territory is found Cambridge School of contextualist approaches in the work of the legal theorist Paul Alli`esin his to the history of political thought, of which book L’invention du territoire, which was origi- Quentin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock are perhaps nally a thesis supervised by Nicos Poulantzas in the most significant figures, offers substantive 1977. Alli`es(1980: 9) suggests that ‘territory 800 Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on December 13, 2010 Elden 801 always seems linked to possible definitions of that ‘modern state sovereignty requires clearly the state; it gives it a physical basis which seems bounded territories’; that ‘there is a fundamental to render it inevitable and eternal’. It is precisely opposition between ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ in order to disrupt that inevitability and eternal affairs in the modern world’; and that ‘the terri- nature that an interrogation of the state of torial state is seen as acting as the geographical territory is necessary. ‘container’ of modern society’ (Agnew, 1994a; This paper outlines some of the issues at stake see also Agnew, 1994b; 2005: 41). As Agnew in undertaking such a project. It proceeds notes, the first assumption dates from the through a number of stages. First, it asks why ter- fifteenth to the twentieth centuries; and the sec- ritory has been neglected as a topic of conceptual ond two from the last 100 years, although there analysis, and critically interrogates work on ter- are of course earlier precedents (Agnew, 2005: ritoriality. Second, it suggests that often territory 41). Others have made similar claims. Gottmann