Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: border studies, power and the anatomy of territory
Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: border studies, power and the anatomy of territory
复制标题
“无边界世界”中的有限空间：边界研究、权力和领土剖析
DOI：
10.1080/17540290903064275
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Paasi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Paasi
有界领土的作用和未来已成为研究的重要主题。学者们尤其对随着冷战后的地缘政治和地缘经济剧变而出现的新形式的空间性进行了理论化。许多学者对全球化的假定力量以及一个以流动和网络为特征的世界的相关崛起感到眼花缭乱，他们表示，我们正在走向一个无国界的世界，民族国家的后退。与此同时，部分是对全球化的反应，部分是对新出现的区域主义和种族地区主义运动的反应，一些国家启动了重新调整规模的进程，在这一进程中，它们已将部分治理权力移交给超国家和次国家区域。随之而来的是，新的、越来越技术化的治理形式被用来控制国家领土。本文将首先考察学术学者如何按照传统对“边界”、“边界”和“领土”的作用进行解释和理论化。然后将发展一些新的概念观点，以理解有限领土空间的持久性。这将表明，尽管互动和网络越来越多，但国家仍然是领土空间的重要组织者和意义的创造者，尽管这些空间正变得越来越漏洞百出。这篇论文着眼于这种意义的创造是如何在空间社会化和政府实践中发生的，这些实践永远旨在使领土可计算。它表明，边界不只是中立线，而是各种机构和机构在复制领土权力的永久过程中使用的重要机构和意识形态符号。
The roles and future of bounded territories have become important themes in research. Scholars have in particular theorized new forms of spatialities that have emerged along with the geopolitical and geo‐economic upheavals that followed the Cold War. Many scholars, dazzled by the supposed power of globalization and the related rise of a world characterized by ‘flows’ and networks, have suggested that we are moving towards a ‘borderless world’ and a retreat of the nation‐state. At the same time, partly as a reaction to globalization and partly as a response to emerging regionalism and ethno‐regionalist movements, a number of states have set in motion a process of re‐scaling in which they have devolved part of their power in governance to supra‐state and sub‐state regions. Concomitantly, new, increasingly technical forms of governance have been taken into use to control state territories. This paper will first scrutinize how academic scholars have by tradition interpreted and theorized the roles of ‘boundedness’, borders and territoriality. Some new conceptual perspectives will then be developed in order to understand the persistence of bounded territorial spaces. It will suggest that, in spite of the increasing interactions and networks, the state is still a crucial organizer of territorial spaces and creator of meaning for them, even though these spaces are becoming increasingly porous. The paper looks at how such meaning‐making occurs in spatial socialization and in the governmental practices that perpetually aim at making territory calculable. It suggests that, instead of being mere neutral lines, borders are important institutions and ideological symbols that are used by various bodies and institutions in the perpetual process of reproducing territorial power.