Territoriality

About 5 pages (1,508 words)

Territory (animal) Summary

Questions on this topic? Just ask!

The Social Science Encyclopedia, Second Edition

territoriality

Territoriality is a strategy which uses bounded spaces in the exercise of power and influence; this can take place at a great variety of spatial scales, ranging from the student in a library who spreads books on a desk so as to prevent others sitting nearby, to a state apparatus which delineates and defends its national borders.

The use of territoriality has been identified in a range of animal species, leading some scientists to argue that it is a genetically inherited trait. Most social scientists avoid this claim, however, and instead focus on the efficiency of territoriality as a strategy, in a large variety of circumstances, involving the exercise of power, influence and domination.

Sack (1986) defines territoriality as the establishment of differential access to people and things. It comprises three necessary facets: a classification of space (i.e. the definition of the relevant territory); communication of that classification by the means of boundaries (so that you know whether you are within or outside the relevant territory); and enforcement or control of membership (i.e. subjection to certain rules if within the territory and limits on crossing its boundary).

The value of this strategy in enforcing control rests on a number of characteristics of bounded spaces. First, as a classification a territory is an extremely efficient way of defining membership—those inside a territory are subject to the controls therein—which can readily be communicated by boundary markers (which might be as effective as walls, as in prisons). Territoriality is also a means of reifying and depersonalizing power, associating it with the space rather than with the individuals who implement it, and therefore can be used to deflect attention from the reality of unequal relationships.

The efficiency of territoriality is exemplified by the large number of ‘containers’ into which the earth’s surface is divided. By far the best example of its benefits to those wishing to exercise power is the state, which is necessarily a territorial body. Within its territory, the state apparatus assumes sovereign power: all residents are required to ‘obey the laws of the land’ in order for the state to undertake its central roles within society; boundaries are policed to control people and things entering and leaving. Some argue that territoriality is a necessary strategy for the modern state, which could not operate successfully without it (Johnston 1991; Mann 1984).

Many social groups use territoriality, either formally (with delineated boundaries, as with estate walls) or informally (as with the ‘turfs’ of street gangs), to advance their interests. These may involve defensive strategies, as when minority groups retreat into ghettos the better to withstand threats.

Territoriality is important in the creation and maintenance of group consciousness—as in nationalism, which often involves people being socialized into allegiance to a territory rather than to a human institution (i.e. the state apparatus in control of that territory). As people identify with one territory, they define others as not of that territory, and therefore different from themselves. This can be a major cause of tension: the definition of ‘in-groups’ (associated with positive characteristics) and ‘cut-groups’ (with negative features) leads to a polarization of social attitudes at a variety of scales (and so some argue for social engineering which will reduce the polarization by mixing rather than separating groups, that is, by removing the use of territoriality: Sennett 1970). Those in control of state apparatus may well build on this polarization of attitudes in, for example, the development of support for foreign policies (as with US President Reagan’s presentation of the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire’).

R.J.Johnston

University of Bristol

References

Johnston, R.J. (1991) ‘The territoriality of law: an exploration’, Urban Geography 12.

Mann, M. (1984) ‘The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results’, European Journal of Sociology 25.

Sack, R.D. (1986) Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History, Cambridge.

Sennett, R. (1970) The Uses of Disorder, London.

terrorism

Terrorism consists of a series of acts intended to spread intimidation, panic, and destruction in a population. These acts can be carried out by individuals and groups opposing a state, or acting on its behalf. The amount of violence is often disproportionate, apparently random, deliberately symbolic: to hit a target which would convey a message to the rest of the population. Violence perpetrated by the state or by rightwing terrorist groups is anonymous. Its goals are to shift sectors of public opinion to support the restoration of law and order and repressive measures, at the same time physically destroying political opponents and intimidating their actual and potential supporters. Violence from left-wing groups is usually ‘signed’. Its goals are the awakening of public opinion to the injustices of the system, the punishment of hated representatives of the ‘system’ and their lackeys, and the expansion of political support for, and/or the defence of, their organizations. The ultimate goal is to muster enough support to overthrow the regime or, at least, to produce a revolutionary situation. An intermediate stage might be the unmasking of the ‘fascist face’ of the regime and the revelation to the population of its repressive reality.

Terrorism by the state or against it must be considered rational behaviour within the context of alternative options. It is suggestive of the lack of vast support both for the state and for terrorist organizations. Otherwise, both would utilize different political means. It is indeed a short cut to the problem of the creation of the necessary support. Sociopolitical terrorism may arise both in democratic and non-democratic states. It is more frequent in the former because of the relative ease with which terrorist organizations can be created in an atmosphere of freedom, when their appearance is unexpected. In non-democratic states, of course, it may be the state apparatus itself which resorts to terrorist activities. In any event, the lack of peaceful alternatives to change is likely to radicalize the situation and to push some opponents towards violent, clandestine activities.

There is not a single cause of terrorism: several conditions and determinants must be present. For state terrorism, the most important conditions are the willingness and determination of the dominant groups to retain power against mounting opposition, even by violent means. For sociopolitical terrorism, it is the inability to acquire sufficient support for radical changes in the light of mass passivity and elite unresponsiveness. However, terrorism is never simply the response to socioeconomic conditions of marginality: it is always the product of a political project. Be they at the service of the state or against the state, the terrorists pursue political goals.

According to their goals, one can define and identify several types of terrorism: repressive, revolutionary and secessionist. It is also possible to speak of international terrorism—though somewhat inappropriately —for those groups staging their activities on the international scene. They want to dramatize their plight and obtain international visibility, recognition, and support (such as some sectors of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Armenians, the Ustasha). However, most terrorist organizations are indigenous, such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the German Rote Armee Fraktion, the Italian Brigate Rosse and the neo-fascist Ordine Nuovo, the French Action Directe and the Basque ETA. They have roots and pursue goals that are inherently national, even though they might enjoy some (reciprocal) international support.

On the basis of the superior technical strength of modern states and of the legitimacy of democratic ones, it is often said that political terrorism cannot win. However, terrorism by the state can achieve significant results, and political terrorism against non-democratic regimes can severely weaken them (though, in order to win, the terrorist group will have to transform itself into guerrilla bands).

Terrorism, even if it is defeated, is not without consequences. The dynamics of political competition, the structures of the state, the relationships between citizens and political-administrative bodies will be changed to an extent that has thus far not been assessed. Therefore, political terrorism will endure as the weapon of groups that have neither the capability, the possibility, nor the patience to utilize other instruments to pursue their goals and implement their strategies.

Gianfranco Pasquino

University of Bologna

Territoriality

territoriality

References

Further reading

terrorism

Further reading