بازاندیشی در مفهوم Territory از نگاه جغرافیای سیاسی ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

2 استادیار جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

3 استادیار تاریخ ایران، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

بی‌شک، واژه‌های تخصصی هر علم زبان گویای آن علم است و زبان علمی، همبستۀ جدایی‌ناپذیر هر علم محسوب می‌شود. پژوهش در هر علمی مستلزم به‌دست‌دادن مجموعه‌ای منسجم از واژگان خاص آن رشته، برابرنهاده‌های آن‌ها و ارائة تعریفی دقیق از آن‌هاست. جغرافیای سیاسی واژه‌های متعددی مانند مکان، فضا، مقیاس و سرزمین و نظایر آن دارد که جزء مفاهیم مورد مجادله هستند. مفهوم Territory یکی از مهم‌ترین و بحث­برانگیزترین مفاهیم رشته است. انتخاب معادل مناسب برای این واژه به یکدستی آن در نوشته‌های تخصصی این رشته و رفع سردرگمی و برداشت­های ناهمگرا میان خوانندگان و مخاطبان کمک بسیار می‌کند. پژوهش حاضر که از نوع بنیادی ـ نظری است و به‌‌صورت توصیفی ـ تحلیلی با استفاده از منابع دست اول فارسی و لاتین انجام گرفته است، در پی پاسخ به چیستی و ماهیت مفهوم تریتوری و نیز معادل­گزینی مناسب‌ در ادبیات جغرافیای سیاسی به زبان فارسی است. مطابق یافته­های تحقیق در معادل­گزینی واژۀ تریتوری فراتر از برداشت جغرافیدانان طبیعی و جغرافیدانان انسانی به کار می­رود؛ جغرافیدانان طبیعی آن را به‌معنای چارچوبی برای فرایندهای طبیعی می‌دانند و جغرافیدانان انسانی واژۀ مزبور را عرصه­ای ایستا برای رویدادهای انسانی به‌کار می­برند. از منظر جغرافیای سیاسی، قلمرو تنها چارچوب فیزیکی و فضایی برای اقدامات انسان نیست؛ بلکه بازتاب روشنی از «روابط قدرت بین کنشگران سیاسی» است، به‌طوری‌که در آن ابعادی متعدد و مهم از زندگی اجتماعی و قدرت اجتماعی نظیر ابعاد کارکردی «کنترل فضا»، «بازیگران سیاسی»، «مرزبندی و اعمال حاکمیت انحصاری» مطرح می­شود. درنتیجه، قلمرو محدوده­ای است که شخص در محتوای آن برای کنترل روش­هایی نظیر «دفاع»، «کنترل»، «محروم­سازی» و «مشمول­سازی» تلاش می­کند. براین‌اساس، تریتوری در ادبیات جغرافیای سیاسی به فضایی محدود­شده گفته می‌شود که با مرز مشخص شده است و اعمال قدرت و نظارت را برای حکومت فراهم می‌کند و بدین‌ترتیب قلمرو اعم از سرزمین است؛ زیرا سرزمین بخش فیزیکی و انسانی (غیرسیاسی) قلمرو است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Rethinking Concept of Territory in Iran's Political Geography literature

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Zohdi Goharpour 1
  • Yashar Zaki 2
  • Rozbeh ZarinKob 3
  • Bahador Zarei 2
2 Assistant Professor of Political Geography Tehran University
چکیده [English]

No doubt that the specialized vocabulary in every science, represented those science, and scientific language as an integral part of every science. Any scientific study requires the loss of a coherent set of specific vocabulary of the discipline, synonyms for them, and suggest them to precisely define the areas of disagreement and eliminate possible misunderstandings.
The etymological origin of ‘territory’ is often traced back to the Latin ‘terra’ (geographic area) and ‘terrere’ (to frighten: to terrorise).Territory is back. For long something of a poor relation among spatial concepts, and until recently on the wane politically, territory today seems to be ever more important. Borders, security, sovereignty, secession, invasion and occupation—all usually seen as close correlates of territory—are rarely out of the news. Meanwhile, in political theory and philosophy, the fashionable notion of deterritorialisation cannot be separated from a correlative reterritorialisation. Territory’s time has come, or so it seems.
If any kind of space is quintessentially “state space”, it is surely “territory”. Yet, for all the far-reaching discussion of the territorial re-organization of the contemporary state, the decline and rise of the political salience of territory, and the implications of territory for the exercise of power, the nature of territory itself—it's being and becoming, rather than its consequences and effects—remains under-theorized and too often taken for granted. The intense engagement with diverse forms of social theory that has marked human geography since the 1980s has involved a comprehensive interrogation and re-thinking of many of the core concepts of the discipline, including space, place, landscape, region and scale. Until recently, however, the concept of territory has not received the same level of attention, at least in the Anglophone literature.
It is interesting to think about the reasons for this relative neglect. It seems plausible to suggest that among critical human geographers the concept of territory may even have been seen as something of an embarrassment. There are a couple of possible explanations for this, particularly if we accept for the sake of argument that territory has usually been understood as a bounded and in some respects homogeneous portion of geographical space.
Geographical thinking in the 1980s and 1990s came increasingly to emphasize the porosity and fluidity of boundaries, and the supposedly consequent reduction in their political salience. It also stressed the increasingly (or even intrinsically) heterogeneous character of space and place. In these circumstances, invoking the concept of territory risked being seen as either anachronistic (because the world had changed) or reactionary (because an insistence on seeing the world in terms of bounded and homogenous spaces suggested a fear of Otherness and an exclusionary attitude to social and cultural difference).
The concept of territory may also have been embarrassing for some because of its ill-defined, but powerful associations with the use of similar concepts in animal ethology and socio-biology. After all, one of the commonest uses of the term “territory” in general discourse is to refer to the home range of an animal, particularly with reference to aggressive and defensive behaviors. Of course, anything that risks smuggling socio-biological assumptions into studies of human activity is anathema to most critical social scientists. A similar mistrust of ideas smacking of environmental determinism may have added to the suspicion with which the concept of territory has sometimes been regarded.
Although many discussions of territory suggest that it is fundamentally a political phenomenon, the perception that it also often involves fixed borders perhaps raised the spectre of “natural boundaries” and nineteenth century understandings about the relationship between culture and environment: desert peoples, mountain peoples, forest peoples and plains peoples; each with a special ineffable bond between culture, nature and “territory”.
The assertion of territorial control has been explained as an innate, instinctive inclination of human beings to possess and to defend an area against intruders, similar to animals. Although every individual human being requires some space to live, and feels emotionally attached to certain places, the diversity of political entities in the past and present shows that neither individuals nor social collectives seek instinctively fixed, closed, and clearly demarcated territories for their survival or the protection of property. People may feel more comfortable and relaxed when they control ‘their’ territory, yet the scale and size of the territory they consider as their ‘natural’ home, or as their fatherland - their backyard, city, region, village, state, federation, neighborhood, empire, etc. - is indeterminate.
Political Geography has several concepts such as place, space, scale and territory, and so that the concepts are disputed. Concept of territory, according to many experts in the field of political geography, one of the most controversial concepts in this field. Choose the appropriate equivalent can help audience for easy understand. This study is fundamental theoretical, and descriptive analysis using primary sources in Persian and Latin, try to find the nature of the concept of territory and introduce appropriate equivalent in Persian political geography literature. As research founding's in appropriate equivalent for territory shows, political geographers use it in different meanings, beyond the understanding of natural geographers as a framework for natural processes, and also as human geographers consider the term mentioned as a static field of human events. In terms of political geography, territory is not only mere space for human action as physical framework, but is a clear reflection of "power relations between political actors", So that in several important aspects of social life and social power, such as function of "space control", "political actors", "borders and apply the monopoly rule" arises. So territory is field that individuals try to control by methods such as "defense", "control", "exclusion" and "inclusion", thus territory, in political geography literature confined space is defined by a boundary, that provides power and control for state; And thus the territory consist of the land, because the land is the physical and human (non-political) domain.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • political geography
  • equivalent
  • Land
  • Territory
  • Space
  1. Agnew, J., 1994, The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 1, PP. 53– 80.
  2. Agnew, J., 2003, Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics, 2nd edition, Routledge, New York.
  3. Albert, M., 2001, Territoriality and modernization, workshop “the cluster of water, Energy and the Human Environment, Jordan, October 20-21, 2001, Institute for Global Society Studies University of Bielefeld.
  4. Baldwin, T., 1992, The Territorial State, In Gross, H & Harrison, R. (Eds), Jurisprudence: Cambridge Essays, Clarendon Press, Oxford, PP. 207– 230.
  5. Brenner, N. Jessop, B. Jones, B. and MacLeod, G. Eds. 2003, State ⁄ space: A reader, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
  6. Connolly, W., 1996, Tocqueville, Territory and Violence, In Shapiro, M. and Alker, H. (Eds), Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, PP. 141– 164.
  7. Cowen, D. and Gilbert, E., 2008, The politics of war, citizenship, territory, In Cowen, D. and Gilbert, E. (Eds), War, Citizenship, Territory, Routledge, London, PP. 1– 30.
  8.  Cox, K., 2002, Political Geography, Blackwell, Oxford.
  9. Delaney, D., 2005, Territory: A Short Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford.
  10. Elden, S., 2009, Terror and territory: The spatial extent of sovereignty, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
  11. Elden, S., 2013, The Birth of Territory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  12. Elden, S., 2013, The Significance of Territory, Geographica Helvetica, No. 68, PP. 65-68.
  13. Giddens, A., 1985, The Nation-State and Violence, Polity, Cambridge.
  14. Gottmann, J., 1973, The Significance of Territory, Charlottesville VA, University of Virginia Press.
  15. Gottmann, J., 1975, The evolution of the concept of territory, Social Science Information, Vol. 14, No. 3, PP. 29– 47.
  16. Krasner, S. D., 1999, Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, NJ: Princeton.
  17. Larkins, J., 2010, From hierarchy to anarchy: Territory and politics before westphalia, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
  18. Mann, M., 1984, The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results, Archives Europ´eennes de Sociologie, No. 25, PP. 185– 213.
  19. Murphy, A., 2012, Entente territorial: Sack and Raffestin on territoriality, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 30, No. 1, PP. 159- 172.
  20. Nine, C., 2008, A Lockean theory of territory, Political Studies, Vol. 56, No.1, PP. 148–165.
  21. Paasi, A., 2000, Territorial identities as social constructs, Hagar vol. 1, PP. 91–113.
  22. Paasi, A., 2003, Territory, In Agnew, J., Mitchell, K. and Tuathail, G. O. (Eds), A Companion to Political Geography Blackwell, Malden, MA, PP. 109– 122.
  23. Painter, J., 2010, Rethinking territory, Antipode,Vol. 42, No. 5, PP. 1090– 1118.
  24. Parker, G., 2004, Sovereign city: The city-state through history, Reaktion Books, London.
  25. Teschke, B., 2003, The myth of 1648: Class, geopolitics and the marking of modern international relations, Verso Press, New York.
  26. Ruggie, J. G., 1993, Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations, International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 1, PP. 139– 174.
  27. Sack, R., 1986, Human territoriality: Its theory and history Cambridge, University Press, Cambridge.
  28. Sassen, S., 2000, Territory and territoriality in the global economy, International Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2, PP. 372– 393.
  29. Spruyt, H., 1994, The sovereign state and its competitors, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  30. Starr, H., 2005, Territory, proximity and spatiality: The geography of international conflict, International Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 3,PP. 387– 406.
  31. Strassaldo, R., 1989, Border studies: The state of the art in europe, In Borderlands in Africa, In Asiwaju, A. I. and Adeniyi, P. O. (Eds), University of Lagos, Lagos.
  32. Verzijl, J. H. W., 1970, International law in historical perspectives, Leyden: Visscher.
  33. Vollaard, H., 2009, Political territoriality in the European Union, Department Political Science, Publisher Leiden University.
  34. Walker, R. B. J., 1993, Inside ⁄ Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  35. Watner, C., 2010, The territorial assumption: Rationale for conquest, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 22, PP. 247– 260.
  36. Weber, M., 1968, Economy and Society, Bedminster Press, New York.
  37. Weber, M., 1994, The profession and vocation of politics, In Lassman, P. and Speirs, R. (Eds), Weber: Political writings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, PP. 309– 369.
  38. Wendt, A., 2001, Social theory of international politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  39. Ypi, L., 2013, Territorial rights and exclusion, Philosophy Compass, Vol. 8, No. 3, PP. 241– 253.
  1. Amid, H., 1984, Amid Persian Encyclopedia, AmirKabir publication, Tehran. (In Persian)
  2. Anidjar, G., 2004, Terror right, CR: The New Centennial Reviewvol.4, No.3, PP. 35– 69.
  1. Brighenti, A. M., 2010, On territorology: Towards a general science of territory, Theory, Culture & Society (SAGE), Vol. 27, No. 1, PP. 52– 72.
  2. Cairo, H., 2004, the field of Mars: Heterotopias of territory and war, Political Geography, No.23, PP. 1009– 1036.
  1. DehKhodda, A. A., 1998, Persian Dictionery, Tehran Uiversity Publication. (In Persian)
  1. Fitzpatrick, P., 2005, Taking place: The spaces and timing of law, Birkbeck College Anthropology of Law Workshop Paper.
  1. Grotius, H., 1964, The Law of War and Peace, Vol. 2, Oceana Publications Inc, New York.
  2. Haggett, P., 2007, Geography, Translated by: Godarzi Nejad, Sh., Samt Publication, Tehran. (In Persian)
  3. Hindess, B., 2006, Terrortory, Alternatives, No. 31, PP. 243– 257.
  4. KavinaniRad, M., 2013, Processing the concept of territory in terms of political geography, The Journal of Spatial Planning, Vol. 17, No. 4. (In Persian)
  1.  McLean, I., 2002, Oxford political science dictionary, Translated by: Ahmadi, H., Mizan publication, Tehran. (In Persian)

30.  MirAhmadi, F., 2016, Explanation of evolution of idea in political geography, Ph.D Thesis, Political Geography, University of Tehran. (In Persian)

  1.  MirHeadar, D. and HeaidariFar, M., 2006, Evolution of territory in era of globalization, Geopolitics Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2. (In Persian)
  2. MirHeadar, D. et al., 2013, Principle in political geography, Samt Publication, Tehran. (In Persian)
  3. MirHeadar, D., 2005, Territoriallity and its Evolution in Political Geography, Geopolitics Quarterly, Vol 1, No. 1. (In Persian)
  4. Moeain, M., 1984, Moeain encyclopedia, 6th edition, AmirKabir publication, Tehran. (In Persian)
  5. Mohammadi, H. R. et al., 2012, Globalization and territoriality in political geography, Human Geography Research Quarterly, Vol. 80, No. ???, PP. ???. (In Persian)
  6. Mojtahedzadeh, P., 2002, Political geography and geopolitics, Samt Publication, Tehran (In Persian)

37.  Muir, R., 2000, Political geography: A new introduction, Translated by: MirHeadar, D., National Geography Organisation Publication, Tehran. (In Persian)

 

  1. کاویانی­راد، مراد، 1392، پردازش مفهوم قلمرو از دیدگاه جغرافیای سیاسی، فصلنامه مدرس علوم انسانی، دورة هفدهم، شمارة 4.
  1.  مجتهدزاده، پیروز، 1381، جغرافیای سیاسی و سیاست جغرافیایی، انتشارات سمت، تهران.
  2.  محمدی، حمیدرضا و دیگران، 1391، جهانی­شدن و سرزمین­سازی در جغرافیای سیاسی، پژوهش­های جغرافیای انسانی، دورۀ 44، شمارة 80.
  3.  مک­لین، ایان، 1381، فرهنگ علوم سیاسی آکسفورد، ترجمۀ حمید احمدی، نشر میزان.
    1.  مویر، ریچارد، 1379، درآمدی نو بر جغرافیای سیاسی، ترجمۀ دکتر درّه میرحیدر، انتشارات سازمان جغرافیایی نیروهای مسلح.
    2.  میراحمدی، فاطمه­سادات، 1395، تبیین سیر اندیشه در جغرافیای سیاسی، رسالة دکتری جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، راهنما: دکتر دره میرحیدر.
    3.  میرحیدر، درّه، 1384، بررسی مفهومTerritoriality و تحوّل آن از دیدگاه جغرافیای سیاسی، فصلنامة ژئوپلیتیک، سال اول، شمارة 1.
    4.  میرحیدر، درّه و محمدرئوف حیدری­فر، 1385، تحوّل مفهوم سرزمین در عصر جهانی­شدن، فصلنامة ژئوپلیتیک، سال دوم، شمارة 2.
    5.  میرحیدر، درّه و همکاران، 1392، مبانی جغرافیای سیاسی، انتشارات سمت، تهران.
  1. هاگت، پیتر، 1386، جغرافیا ترکیبی نو، ترجمۀ شاپور گودرزی­نژاد، انتشارات سمت، تهران.
  2. معین، محمد، 1363، فرهنگ معین، چاپ ششم، انتشارات امیرکبیر، تهران.
  3. عمید، حسن، 1363، فرهنگ فارسی عمید، انتشارات امیرکبیر، تهران.
  4. دهخدا، علی اکبر، 1377، لغت­نامه، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.