"The word territory conveys the notion of an area around a place; it connotes an organization with an element of centrality, which ought to be the authority exercising sovereignty over the people occupying or using that place and the space around it." (Gottmann, Jean -- The Significance of Territory 1973)
Territory has been bounded for centuries by zones or, more in modern times, by lines. It has always been a measure of the power of a country to be able to claim a certain division of land for itself. These areas and the people that fall under them would be subject to the laws, taxes, military practices, and structuring imposed upon them by the ruling class. This ruling class, or governmental power, would have the territorial right of the practice of these things, given that the state is able to govern itself. The particular size of the state, though, is not definitive of the power that the state has. This element is more subject to strategic reason; that the territory of a state would be practically managable and securable.
After the colonialization period though, states focused more on managing land rather than claiming it, placing particular importance of the growth of its current cities and towns. This is also because with only 21% land on surface of the earth, it is considered "a scarce resource that cannot be produced, only redistributed." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
The earth has been condemned to being distributed, owned, and borded by those who have enough control to do so. It is especially in these modern times, there is a significant increase in the perception of land as an asset, or even more so, a taxable asset which can be sold, bought, or exchanged.
In any case, bounded territory is supposed to be independent under the rule of the state that resides in it. By definition, an independent state should not be subject to another, only the citizens of the given state will be subject to the laws. But the chapter in the book raised a good question, "Why should geographical location dictate citizenship, rights and responsibilities?" It is a question I have no answer to because I have asked it myself recently. I mean, especially in modern times, where globalization is very prominent, does it really matter where a person is born? Citizenship seems so very arbitrary when from wherever you are, connections, through networks, can be formed to almost any place in the world.
Regarding this, the chapter proposed two terms that I think are quite appropriate. First is deterritorialization, which means that territory is no longer fixed, and second, supra-territorialization, which means that interaction can no longer be contained by the borders of states.
"Why should a state be limited by what it can do within its boundaries but those boundaries not be open to question?" (from the chapter also)
The increasing globalization that the world is subject to calls in other people to issues within a state that could be considered as questionable for the good of the people living in there. True, that sometimes these interventions are uncalled for simply for the sheer reason that those intervening do not understand the culture that governs those they thing have questionable practices or policies. But if people outside of a state can call into question the government of a state, what's to stop them from calling into question the right of the state to still retain the same boundaries that they have?
Especially in recent years, many situations have inspired supra-national involvement and therefore supra-territorial initiatives. Things like infectious diseases (AIDS/HIV among them), poverty (in Africa and elsewhere), global climate disasters as well as natural disasters (such as Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines and the devastating earthquake in Haiti) are among these. The increasing concern that humanity seems to have for those even outside their own spaces of residence are inspiring more and more global action to relieve suffering and subsequently, interfere, whether invited or not, with the independent state.
With these, I'm finding it hard to give an answer to the question "Why is the world divided territorially" and have it be relevant and sufficient. It seems more prudent to consider the world as a whole, especially in these times where humanity has to act together to survive and resolve those difficulties that we, ourselves, have created for the planet.
So, why is the world divided territorially? Does it even matter anymore? Is it merely a matter of practice that impacts little on actual living?
1.2.10
(ML) Thinking About The World: Is Globalization Good Or Bad?
Is Globalization Good or Bad?
Well, that's really a very dependent question. It, of course, depends on your perception of what is truly part of globalization. For me, I suppose, there are two possibilities. It's either good -- if we focus on the variety we gain as well as the healthy exchange of goods as well as cultures -- or bad -- if we focus on the fact that some cultures seem to be disappearing into what is called neo-colonialism. The reason why I can still see-saw between the two is because I have not decided on a definite view of globalization. I know and have experienced far too little to be unforgiving in my answer.
But I suppose, I'd like to see globalization in a good light, given that it is about sharing cultures, rather than adapting the dominant one. It is as significant as one aspect of language. English, American English of course, is basically considered the global language, one that most could use to communicate in any part of the globe. I think that this is acceptable. I mean, that English is something that shares cultures, it helps people express things, for the most part, for other people from different countries to understand. As long as it is used in this capacity, I think it is a good thing, especially since it helps people communicate and expand their experiences and learnings. But it becomes bad when English becomes the sole language of countries that have other native languages, that they wind up disusing and invalidating their languages and, perhaps later on, cultures.
As long as I think globalization is done in the capacity that I just labelled as "good" then I think that everybody winds up winners. In the other case though, well... it remains to be seen, but there are sure to be many losers.
In what ways does a history of globalization differ from a history of the world? Are the two separate from each other?
Well, in my opinion, the two are separate. The history of the world is basically the history of the whole human race. It can be in small parts, like the history of a certain country at distinct points in time, or in rather larger parts, like the history of the World Wars.
On the other hand, the history of globalization begins much later in the Gregorian calendar because it's much later on that states were established. I suppose you could consider the time of empires and colonizations as something of connected cultures, but it wasn't so much as sharing and development as it is now, because the connectedness involved a certain wiping out of local history, culture, and language, to be replace by that of the invading and dominant force.
Is globalization a new way of looking at the world or simply another term for imperialism, colonialism, modernism, or capitalism?
In the way that I've been defining it so far, is is a new way of looking at the world. Given that the definition that I've been expressing so far is idealistic, my answer still stands in accordance to it.
Of course, realistically speaking, it could just be another term. I suppose this would be true if the definition of globalization would fall under the categorization that I had defined as "bad" earlier in this post.
Who is behind globalization? Is it really an American phenomenon?
Well, my research shows that globalization could've started as far back as the Hellenistic age, years ago. So from simply that point, it couldn't have been American.
What I found regarding the Greek culture at this time was that there was widespread trade over places in India to Athens to Spain and back. It was also, apparently, the first time the idea of "cosmopolitan culture" came into play. Fittingly so, it is from the Greek word "kosmopoltēs" or citizen of the world, the pol in it equivalent to city or state. (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/)
There is also speculation that globalization began with the trade links at the time of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, which created the Silk Road, a trade route from Western China until Rome.
At the very latest, I think that modern globalization is not simply an American phenomenon, but one that also pervades Europe, since the time of the World Wars.
How far has globalization progressed? Will it reach a "tipping point" when the world is fully globalized? If so, when?
I think what could be considered as the "tipping point" of globalization is when culture is so shared across bordered that there is nothing left to share anymore. When states are knowledgeable of and perhaps adapt part of other cultures to their own, so that different cultures co-exist similarly on each state in the world.
But for that matter, I don't think the world would ever reach the point of being fully globalized. There's just such a constant of change and persistence to change of humanity, that I don't think there will ever be a time that so many cultures could mesh so easily.
As for the present progress of globalization, I can't say I could be accurate with a guess. I suppose I could approximate perhaps a 30-40% globalization with the way that humanity is sharing and helping each other right now. But I don't think that we are anywhere past half, or close to progressing past half, simply because the human race isn't ready to go that far yet.
There's still too much that people need to learn about acceptance and letting go of the innate superiority complex that most have (where my culture is better than yours, or worse, your culture is wrong because...), before globalization can progress without being oppressive and destructive to cultures that are not as aggressive as others.
Well, that's really a very dependent question. It, of course, depends on your perception of what is truly part of globalization. For me, I suppose, there are two possibilities. It's either good -- if we focus on the variety we gain as well as the healthy exchange of goods as well as cultures -- or bad -- if we focus on the fact that some cultures seem to be disappearing into what is called neo-colonialism. The reason why I can still see-saw between the two is because I have not decided on a definite view of globalization. I know and have experienced far too little to be unforgiving in my answer.
But I suppose, I'd like to see globalization in a good light, given that it is about sharing cultures, rather than adapting the dominant one. It is as significant as one aspect of language. English, American English of course, is basically considered the global language, one that most could use to communicate in any part of the globe. I think that this is acceptable. I mean, that English is something that shares cultures, it helps people express things, for the most part, for other people from different countries to understand. As long as it is used in this capacity, I think it is a good thing, especially since it helps people communicate and expand their experiences and learnings. But it becomes bad when English becomes the sole language of countries that have other native languages, that they wind up disusing and invalidating their languages and, perhaps later on, cultures.
As long as I think globalization is done in the capacity that I just labelled as "good" then I think that everybody winds up winners. In the other case though, well... it remains to be seen, but there are sure to be many losers.
In what ways does a history of globalization differ from a history of the world? Are the two separate from each other?
Well, in my opinion, the two are separate. The history of the world is basically the history of the whole human race. It can be in small parts, like the history of a certain country at distinct points in time, or in rather larger parts, like the history of the World Wars.
On the other hand, the history of globalization begins much later in the Gregorian calendar because it's much later on that states were established. I suppose you could consider the time of empires and colonizations as something of connected cultures, but it wasn't so much as sharing and development as it is now, because the connectedness involved a certain wiping out of local history, culture, and language, to be replace by that of the invading and dominant force.
Is globalization a new way of looking at the world or simply another term for imperialism, colonialism, modernism, or capitalism?
In the way that I've been defining it so far, is is a new way of looking at the world. Given that the definition that I've been expressing so far is idealistic, my answer still stands in accordance to it.
Of course, realistically speaking, it could just be another term. I suppose this would be true if the definition of globalization would fall under the categorization that I had defined as "bad" earlier in this post.
Who is behind globalization? Is it really an American phenomenon?
Well, my research shows that globalization could've started as far back as the Hellenistic age, years ago. So from simply that point, it couldn't have been American.
What I found regarding the Greek culture at this time was that there was widespread trade over places in India to Athens to Spain and back. It was also, apparently, the first time the idea of "cosmopolitan culture" came into play. Fittingly so, it is from the Greek word "kosmopoltēs" or citizen of the world, the pol in it equivalent to city or state. (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/)
There is also speculation that globalization began with the trade links at the time of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, which created the Silk Road, a trade route from Western China until Rome.
At the very latest, I think that modern globalization is not simply an American phenomenon, but one that also pervades Europe, since the time of the World Wars.
How far has globalization progressed? Will it reach a "tipping point" when the world is fully globalized? If so, when?
I think what could be considered as the "tipping point" of globalization is when culture is so shared across bordered that there is nothing left to share anymore. When states are knowledgeable of and perhaps adapt part of other cultures to their own, so that different cultures co-exist similarly on each state in the world.
But for that matter, I don't think the world would ever reach the point of being fully globalized. There's just such a constant of change and persistence to change of humanity, that I don't think there will ever be a time that so many cultures could mesh so easily.
As for the present progress of globalization, I can't say I could be accurate with a guess. I suppose I could approximate perhaps a 30-40% globalization with the way that humanity is sharing and helping each other right now. But I don't think that we are anywhere past half, or close to progressing past half, simply because the human race isn't ready to go that far yet.
There's still too much that people need to learn about acceptance and letting go of the innate superiority complex that most have (where my culture is better than yours, or worse, your culture is wrong because...), before globalization can progress without being oppressive and destructive to cultures that are not as aggressive as others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)