Territory Imaginationand function A/Territoryis defined as the following: o An area of land under thejurisdiction of a ruler or state.
o ‘the government was prepared togive up the nuclear weapons on its territory’ o Zoology An area defended by ananimal or group of animals against others of the same sex or species. o An area defended by a team orplayer in a game or sport. o An area in which one has certainrights or for which one has responsibility with regard to a particular type ofactivity. o Mass noun, with adjective or nounmodifier Land with a specified characteristic.o ‘woodland territory’ o (Especially in the US, Canada, orAustralia) an organized division of a country that is not yet admitted to thefull rights of a state. o An area of knowledge, activity, orexperience. The origin of the word base Latin word’territorium’ which is used in reference to land or a district, has 2etymological theories. According to the first, the term comes from the latinword ‘terra’ (dry land) + orium, the suffic denoting place.
The second theorydraws the origin to territorium derived instead from ‘t?rrere’ (tofrighten). When the second theory is drawn out, a territory is a place fromwhich people are warned off’ which unlike the 1st theory places amore functional purpose for territories. The ethological conception draws our attentionto two important points. The first point is that territory has fundamentally todo with functions.7 Forboth animals and the human being, these functions are usually described as defence,control, reproduction, and access to resources. The second point is thatterritory is an imagined entity, a space thatis carved out, excerpted and circumscribed in view of a set of tasks to carryout. The territorial redux is an imaginative mechanism whereby someone isrecognized as an intruder or insider (or other equivalent qualification) toone’s territory. One of the main difficulties in talking aboutterritory is that this concept is transversal to several differentdisciplines—ranging macro to micro, from geography to sociology, from ethology,to ecology, from anthropology to law—all of which have their own idiosyncraticdefinition.
Which is further more interesting because through the processdefining what each disciple regards as its definition of territory, eachdiscipline creates respective boundaries of their interpretations of theconcept. ‘the tool one uses to grasp the object is part of the very object one triesto seize’ Andrea Brighenti, 2006 Brighenticontinues define two pivotal categories to appreciate the relational featuresof territory are scale and visibility. Almost all territories can be classifiedalong these two variables. Interestingly, while the rule of thumb associateslarger scale with higher visibility, this correlation is not always valid.Rather than simply large-scale ones, the most visible territories are theinstitutionalized 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 suggestedto be at the conceptual core of territory, so that spatial and non-spatialterritories can be seen as superimposed one onto the other and endowed withmultiple connections.
Onlyonce relations among subjects, rather than space, are put at the conceptualcore of territory, it becomes possible to capture the ways in which spatial andnon-spatial territories are superimposed one onto the other and endowed withmultiple reciprocal connections,according to different scales and degrees of visibility. only the most visible ones arerecognized as proper territories. Territory isexplored in the most in Biology, and Sociology. In the former the exploredconcept is territoriality which is expressed as a instinctive act (inreference to animal behaviour) the abilityto react in aggressive and defensive patterns under given circumstancesexisting as a biological imperative, thishypothesis reached in Robert Ardreys’ ‘book ‘The Territorial Imperative wherehe elucidate the role that inherited evolutionary instinct, particularly the territorialimperative plats in human society in the phenomena such as property ownershipand nation building. The problem with Ardreys is he makesaggressiveness the basis of the terroroty. ‘DG.
They sued the understanding ofterriry advanced by etholisht Jakob von Uexkull ot help shift the focus awayfrom 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 andfavours that at the core of territoriality is strategy and definesterritoriality as “the attempt by an individual or group to affect,influence or control people, phenomena and relationships, by delimiting andasserting control over a geographic area.”8 Bymaking strategy a central concern, Sack frames the question of territory asinherently political. By pointingout that territories may exist in degrees, and that they can be switched on andoff according to strategic aims, Sack brought agency tothe foreground of the concept.
The biologist Jakob von Uexküll was probably the first topoint out that territory appears as a subjective and aesthetic production whichcannot be inferred from mere characteristics of any objective physicalenvironment.4 in…Delueze and Guartti refer to von Uexkullsto as “”A territory materalizswhen milieu components cease to be directional and functional to becomedimensional and expressive. Functions do not explain the territory butpresuppose it.
” Delueze & Guarttari.For him territory refers to a specific ‘milieu’ thatcannot be serpared from the living thing occupying and creating the milieu, sothat the meaning of the milieu is affective. The territory is marked by indexesthat ”may be components taken from any of the miliues: materials, organicproducts, skin or membrane states, energy sources, action perceptioncondestate.” Delueze and guattai. The terroitrialising elements resides ‘in thebecoming expressive of ryhtim and melody in other words, in emergence of properqualities (colour, odour, sound, sillhouete..) Art?Once ashift from an essentialist and objectivist to an operational and interactionalimagination of territory is made, the activity of boundary-drawing can beinvestigated through a series of questions proposed by Andrea Brighenti heressay.
: Who isdrawing? How is thedrawing made? What kindof drawing is being made? Why is thedrawing being made? Terriolisation. “Territoryis regarded as an activity of boundary-drawing and as a process which createspre-assigned relational positions a way of social sorting” Andrea Brighenti,2006 Themovement of Territorialisation is act of organizing as a territory, a processof reordering physical or virtual relationships “Territorialisation presupposesan appropriation of a territory that can take several forms”. This appropriationcould easily be a demarcated territory of land remarked due to new ownership orlessintuitive territories, such as objects, rituals, and culture.
It could be the formationof an idea or a religion, the classification of a relationship, theinterconnectivity of set of relations or the acknowledgement of a situation onefinds them in. A defined boundary, threshold or limit is the single commonalitybut within the playground of this condition, territorialisation can range froma mapped geographical set of physical space to existing in the realm of themeta-physics and ephemeral abstraction. Territory-drawing is thereforea essential way of manufacturing relations among human beings mediated byplaces, spaces, objects, and every type of signs and symbols. Ultimately, whenbased on signs and symbols, territory need not be a space.
A similar point wasmade by the Canadian Sociologist Erving Goffman whose major areas of study includedthe sociology of everyday life through social interaction, social constructionof self and social organisation of experience. In ‘Relations in public’ (Goffman,1971) he proposes that all territories can be divided into categories dependingon their organisation and hypothesized a link between each kind of territoryand its temporal extension. He identified three types of territory—fixedterritories, situational territories and egocentric territories.
Fixed Territories:Which have a geographical extension and to which the person can claim formallegitimate title. One example might be real estate or physical property. SituationalTerritories: Confined to specific locations and which the person may make hisor her property for a limited period of time thus temporally appropriating aspace. These spaces then to be public spaces like restaurants, a bench in apark or desk in libraries this type of territorialisation is linked with thetype of activity that is considered to be the norm in that given context. EgocentricTerritories: Which unlike the pervious types is completely moveable and iscarried about by a person. This category is further subdivided into 8 subtypes:’The personal space’, ‘The stall’, use space, turn, Sheath, Possessionalterritory, informational territory, conversational preserve.
Goffman then turnshis attention to ways of violating these territories an idea he called’Modalities of violation’ ways of engaging in territorial offense whether thatmay be moving too close, actual defilement or contamination. These ideas springup in Deleuzeand Guattaris reconfiguration of lacnian ‘territorialisation’. They propose isthat the subject is exposed to new organisations; principal insight being:deterritorlisation shatters the subject. When a boundary is temporallypenetrated or deconstructed to dislocate the set of relations that constituteas the territory. Re/de territorialisation Shifts inmovement occur when the membrane around a territory fractures allowing the setof relations to become recoded, inscribed, invaded and even annexed. This holdstrue for cities or nation-states but also ideologies, an image, humansubjectivity and individual perspective. Deterritorialisationis this process.
After the dis-embedding follows the reformation of therelations and membrane this is called ‘Reterritorialisation’ and was proposedby Deleuze and Guattari, defined by Dovey as ‘invasion ofurban interstices, construction of houses, the inscription of boundaries’through the implementation of informal practices (Dovey, 2012 Theconcept having two modes: ‘Deterritorialisation’& ‘Reterritorialisation’ (Deleuze andGuattari, 1972). Deterritorialisation is associated withdecontextualizing of a set of relations and Reterritorialisation is thereconfiguring and restructuring of decontextualized relations, creatingsomething new. The two modes happen simultaneously with deterritorialisation always accompanied by reterritorialisation. They embodythe process of reconfiguration and reconfiguration with the reconstructedfragments having traces of the previous incarnation but in its entirety becomesa new expression.
Whenever a territoryappears, new functions are created, and pre-existent functions are re-organizedinto new ones.20 Thecreation of a territory generates a basic discontinuity between the inside andthe outside. Each drawing activity determines effects of deterritorializationand reterritorialization. Something or someone is included because somethingelse or someone else is excluded. These basic territorial operations ofdeterritorialization and subsequent reterritorialization generate on-goingprocesses of separation and fusion with each deterritorialization entails achain of subsequent reterritorializations, the two movements recursivelyembedded into one another. The terms are originally related to the analysis of capitalism and culturalglobalization explored by Gilles Deleuze and Flex Guattari in their book ‘Anti-Oedipus:Capitalism and Schizophrenia’ where they attempt to diagnose the “Dissipatednature of human subjectivity in contemporary capitalist cultures” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1972). They draw parallels between a schizophrenic and capitalism,the major link being both modes have the ability to implant themselves in anycontext as a ‘decoder and scrambler’. ‘Decode’ not meaning to translate ordecipher, in this context ‘decode’ relates to the undermining of existing codesthat govern (in this case) society and participate in the deterritorialisation (decontextualizingof a set of relations) within said society.
Through this deterritorialisationall customs and norms are scrambled as a ‘schizophrenic process’ (Meaning itsresembles the schizophrenic unconsciousness where everything is scrambled andundistinguished from everything else) the structure of identity collapses. Reterriolisation is expressed as a Trangressive act; an actthat breaks rules and norms in the repurposing of ideals and cultures throughthe crossing over and merging of the multiple entities. This merging literally negatesthe form society expects of it and becomes neither or and allsimultaneously. Transgression Theoretical Theconcept of subverting ideals or going against an ideal has been present inliterature and the ideas of theorist/philosophers, Transgression. But onlyrecently has it become contemporary in the sense of place. In Foucault ‘Apreface to Transgression, 1980 he heavily links transgression with Nietzsche’s ‘Death of God’ concept (the term being synonymouswith ‘deterritorialisation, schizophrenia or capitalism).
Foucault says “Deathof god creates an urgency for meaning” as before god was present, this searchfor meaning leads to the ‘infinity of interpretation’ and transgression is theprocess that seeks to overcome interpretation and the ‘hermeneutical space’left by the removal of meaning to god/ through the deterritorialisation ofsociety, Transgression must then ‘stretch and break the boundaries of eachmeaning’ to reveal new limits to once again break. Cementing the mutualisticrelationship between Transgression and limit. Jenks calls it “the modernpost-god initiative” (Jenks, 2003). Foucaultdefines transgression as “Profanation, which no longer recognizes any meaningin the sacred” (Foucault, 1980) Tshumibrings to light the problems with ‘Definition’ which is also apparent inFoucault’s thoughts, ‘infinity of interpretation’ (Foucault, 1980). This paradoxical relationship,like Foucault’s profane and sacred, contains ‘two independent but mutuallyexclusive aspects’ (Tshumi, 1944) but whatFoucault is proposing is that the act of transgression comes from theempowerment of one aspect, profane over sacred, informal over theestablishment, the breaking of one to allow the other to reach new sacredlimits to once again attempt to break. Tshumi suggests transgression is “whereit (architecture) transcends its paradoxical nature by negating the formsociety expects of it” (Tshumi, 1944) implying transgression isn’t thecrossing of one by the other but at a ‘point of rot’ when something is neitheror and both at the same time, a proscribed place, “where death touches life.
These twoviews are expressed by Jenks defining Transgression as “that, which transcendsboundaries or exceeds limits” (Jenks, 2013).Jenks as Foucault did before stressed that transgression (reterritorialisation)is not destruction or evil but just a reaction to an opposing force that gainsits energy from ‘the perpetual threat of constraint or destruction’ (Jenks, 2013). An example of this dualisticprocess, when the Spanish (Hernán Cortés) conquered the Aztecs, and after theSpanish deterritorialized them by eliminating the symbols of the Aztecs’beliefs and rituals, the Spanish then reterritorialized by putting up their ownbeliefs and rituals – now you see a hybridity between the old customs that havemanifest in the nuanced way certain regions of South Americans practicesCatholicism. And more importantly for this essay and lessintuitive, example is provided by counter-cultural movements that stressed theimportance of deterritorializing practices. Found in the The Situationists’ practice of dérive,or drifting28 wasconceived as an exercise of “rapid passage through varied ambiances”so as to induce awareness in the detachment from places. By practicing dérive,the Situationists’ ultimate aim was to reterritorialize themselves in what theycalled “constructed situations,” which were thought of as spaces ofexperimentation in liberated social interaction Or the practice of detournment,which literally is a form of deconstruction of already existing media and thereformation of the fragmented element into a new expression. Using tactics as away of reframing or reorganizing the way in which people view things. Tactics.
Michelde Certeau explores the use of tactics in”ThePractice of Every Day Life” he proposed ‘that an invisible world of mass culturalparticipation far from being a distant utopia already existed albeitsurreptitiously in a twilight realm of what he called ‘the tactical’ The ‘tactical’ or tactics is At the core of “The Practice ofEvery Day Life”. He defines it as a method ” in whichthe weak are seeking to turn the tables on the strong. Tactics must depend on”clever tricks, knowing how to get away with things, the hunter’s cunning,manoeuvres, polymorphic simulations, joyful discoveries poetic as well aswarlike. Which is a process of trangression”. He contrasts the tactical whichstrategies, which he defines as “as acalculus of force relationships when a subject of will and power (a proprietor,an enterprise, a city, a scientific institution) can be isolated from anenvironment.” 5.… a place where it can “capitalizeon its advantages, prepare its expansions, and secure independence with respectto circumstances.
” This distinction between tactics andstrategies is used to highlight the uneual relationship ion culturalproduction. Thetactical is defined as ‘Activity in the urban realm that encourages inhabitantsto re-appropriate vacant land in the city and transform it into self-managesspace’ (Petrescu & Petcou, 2013) thisis done through of course deterritorialisation and then reterritorialisation. The article goeson to suggest that ‘deviousness’ is a key factor to “get things done”. Thisidea of ‘Artfulness’ in resistance isproposed by Certeau challenging the ‘mechanism imposed by institutions(Grid of Discipline)’ and stating “Everyday life inventsitself by poaching in countless ways on the property of others” (De Certeau, 1984).
This informality is studied in the article ‘InformalSettlement and Complex Adaptive Assemblage’, International Development PlanningReview (Dovey, 2012)’, Informal settlements are described asTransgressive because “they transgress the formal codes of the state in termsof land tenure, urban planning, design and construction” this transgression isnot the romantised, conceptual act proposed by Foucault, this transgression isonly present because of the lack of choice and the lack of an alternative path,as a ‘resource for managing poverty’. Through this idea ‘utopia exits throughthe tactical. Utopia is not the end product but the idiocriactic methods inwhich we impose out ideas of utopia upon the city, out bedroom or our minds.