The Birth of Territory is the book I’ve been writing, on and off, since 2000. Between 2008 and 2011 I was working on it full-time while the recipient of a Leverhulme major research fellowship. It will be published by University of Chicago Press in 2013.
This page gathers up some of the materials online relating to this project.
Updates on the chapters – written while I was redrafting the whole book while in Seattle – can be found at these links: Chapter One; Chapter Two; Chapter Three; Chapter Four; Chapter Five; Chapter Six; Chapter Seven; Chapter Eight; Chapter Nine. A brief discussion of the introduction can be found here.
Some of the lectures I’ve given on this project have been recorded.
- “Territory without Borders”, Global Studies Association
- “The Emergence of Territory”, Erlangen
- “The Emergence of Territory”, Nijmegen (updated version of Erlangen).
- “From Territorium to Territory”, Open University (audio only).
- “How should we do the history of territory?” University of California, Berkeley (audio only)
A draft of what forms the basis for the introduction has been published separately here. Material on Kleisthenes, Antigone and Beowulf has also appeared separately, in rather different forms to how it will be in the book.
Pingback: Tasmania and Territory | Progressive Geographies
This project looks very exciting. I’ve been concerned with some of these issues and I’m very interested in Althusius. This is my email if you’d like to contact me.
Cheers and all the best
Lucas.
Hello, Dr. Elden. My name is Ana Burgos from Centro de Investigaciones en Geografia Ambiental UNAM (Mexico). Im very interested in your work about the construction of a new and more complete definition of territory. I have a question for you. What do you think about the notion of territory at local scales, that is, community scale, applied on a few thousand of hectareas? I explain: I m working in poor rural communities in Mexico, searching for local development based in ecosystems management principles. In this country, rural areas were characterized by the existence of common lands in social units called “ejidos”, in which an interesting social and colective proccess of negotiation was proceding to carry the land use. However, changes in mexican laws happened in 1992. After that, local re-accomodations had place inside each community and a new territorial configuration emerged where co-exist individual, groupal and colective control of land. I didn´t find conceptual referencies to discuss this phenomena at so local level. What could you say me about this? thank you in advance!
Ana
Thanks Ana. Personally, I’m not that interested in the local scale issues. That’s not to say that it’s unimportant, but that my focus is elsewhere. I hope that the work I’m doing on territory at a state level is helpful in thinking of other scales, especially in the ideas of territory as a ‘political technology’ and the interrelation of economic, strategic, legal and technical aspects. That said, I wonder if the kind of political-geographical relations you are interested in are, actually, ‘territory’ in the specific sense, and I would ask if other spatial terms such as place, area, region – on which there are extensive literatures – might be as, or more, helpful in your inquiry. One aspect that might link is Lefebvre’s notion of territorial autogestion, translated into English in the State, Space, World collection that Neil Brenner and I edited. That might be helpful.
Thanks for your fast answer. I perfectly understand your viewpoint and the sense that you have done to the notion of territory, thinking mainly in the nation-state level. I found a gap in the conceptualization of territory at local level (community level), and It is possible that the notion of “territorial autogestion” and the “french tradition” could be nearest of it. I will read more about this (thanks for the advice, i will search for your collection). However, I don´t believe that other geographical terms like place, area, region could be useful since they aren´t directly connected with the idea of “control of space”, “power relationships”, “appropriation”, and “decision making process”. For Mexico, the understanding of the re-organization of land tenure in rural areas and the emergence of new arrangements between local actors (mixing colective, groupal and individual land use) is relevant for the definition of national policies, about the conservation of the biodiversity and the promotion of endogenous development in very poor areas. Perphaps, a connection between the upper scale and local level could be established. I will follow your work!
Pingback: Reading Foucault in Nigeria | Progressive Geographies
Pingback: “Sovereignty, Territory and the Imperium” – review essay by Karena Shaw | Progressive Geographies
Pingback: Tim Morton, Realist Magic and writing books | Progressive Geographies
Hi Dr. Elden. Have been browsing through your Work and sounds pretty interesting. In your opinion would you link territory greatly to boundaries and how they could possibly be seen as a form of political restrictions in a sense? At the moment I am looking at Irelands economic crisis and how as a result of the Government putting strategies in place, people are emigrating and breaching these territorial boundaries as a form of boycott, and as implication for the States actions. Would or could you see this to be in any way valid or relevant, if you could help in any way please.
Kind Regards,
Séamus
Thanks Séamus. Territory and boundaries are often related, but I’ve tried to make the argument that we should not define territory simply as a bounded/bordered space. Doing that seems to mean that any transgression of boundaries is seen as part of the declining importance of territory. This does not mean that boundaries are unimportant to territory, but we need to think more on how they are important. I’ve tried to discuss this in more detail here – http://hir.harvard.edu/territory-without-borders – and in a few other places. Good luck with your own work.
Much appreciated, thank you very much for your prompt reply. I understand completely with regard to looking at territory as not just the physical space or boundaries. I will follow up in reading your discussions. Thank you again very much and Best of Luck!
Pingback: Discussion with Adam Ramadan, Cambridge, 16 February 2012 | Progressive Geographies
Pingback: Shakespearean Territories | Progressive Geographies
Pingback: The Birth of Territory – University of Chicago Press, 2013 | Progressive Geographies
Pingback: The Birth of Territory reactions | Progressive Geographies
can’t wait Dr Elden!
Pingback: Marking finished | Progressive Geographies