关于本课程 为了解释全球化是如何重构公共政策和再塑社会行为，我们将研究不同的政治、经济行为体、研究各类——公共或私人，个体或集体——社会行为体，并着眼关注到它们之间的交流和互动作用，这些行为体正在重构着国际关系。 本课程以法国社会学和历史学视角来研究国际关系。同时也提供英语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies/)、法语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr/)和阿拉伯语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-ar/)。
领土的多样性
Loading...
Del curso dictado por Sciences Po
世界空间、法国视角下的国际研究
4 calificaciones
Conoce a los instructores
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
[MUSIC]
Let's talk this MOOC on Espace Mondial, by considering territory.
What does it mean?
Territory, has many functions to achieve.
The first one is to support political order.
The second one would be to support a population.
And the third one is supporting material resources.
And particularly for feeding people around the world.
Let's start by the first function that's to say shaping,
structuring a particular order.
We have then to take into account the extreme diversity of territories.
And to have in mind, that is, I think, the main argument, that
our territorial vision, which was shaped by the European and
the western history doesn't fit to all the histories around the world.
And this is probably one of the main origins
of the tensions that we can take into account around the world, and
of course, the conflict, and the new international conflict,
which unfortunately take place now, around the world.
For this reason, as to say, because of this diversity,
territory has to be considered as a source of inequalities,
of tensions, of conflict.
I'd like to start
with the famous well-known definition given by Robert Sack.
Well, it considers territory not as a synonym of space,
of course, but as a political instrument.
In fact, territory is a political instrument which is
used by governments for controlling a population, and
particularly by using the limitation and border lines.
As you know, territory is a special way of building politics.
I want to tell you, that this territorial construction of politics,
does not cover all the kinds of politics around the world especially their history.
Empire does not correspond to this vision of space.
An empire is not really territory because an empire
is not be limited by straight border lines like nation states.
And that's why this is the first conflict we have to take here into account.
So many old empires meet so
many difficulties for getting integrated into the present world order.
If you take into account Russia, China.
These two states, appearing states,
are really old empires, and made so many difficulties for
being integrated into this interstate world order.
This is the problem of Caucasus, this is the problem of Ukrainia,
which is well known by now, but it's also the problems of Afghan.
And for China this is the problem of Tibet, the problem of.
The problem of also of the relationship between China and
Vietnam, China and Mongolia, China and Korea.
If you take into account for instance tribal systems and
especially nomadic systems,
nomadic systems does not fit to the definition of territory.
And that's why some people in Africa, like Tuaregs in the Sahel,
meet so many difficulties for
being integrated into the territorial nation-states of this region of the world.
And this is probably one of the main routes of the conflict,
and the bloody conflicts, which are observed in Sahel.
That's why nation state is the only real produce of
this territorialization of politics.
That's why the European history is an exception,
which can be purely distinguished even from the American
experience in which border line and frontier have not the same meaning.
And that's why also Europe is characterized
by very fragmented history and by this plurality and
this competition among smaller,
large or small nation states.
But the problem is that if territorialization of politics
is something exceptional, with something I would say historic.
We can consider that first,
there is a real problem of how to build this territorialization of politics.
And the second problem is, what about after?
And we can consider that this territorization of
politics which plays such a role in the European history
is not eternal and can be re-questioned, reconsidered.
The first question is what about the construction
of this territorialization of politics?
And it is at this level that we have to discriminate
between two types of nation building.
Either territory is at the upstream or it is downstream.
If it is upstream, that's to say that territory is shaping the issue.
If it is downstream,
it means that nation will shape territory.
The first type is the French history of nation building.
In which precisely first,
dynastic centers build progressively,
and step by step, a state with territory.
And those people who are living on these territories are belonging,
are reputed to belong and to be committed to the same nation.
The nation is coming from the territory.
And this is from this vision that comes the famous and
well known Jus Soli in which territory is attributing the citizenship
to the individuals who are criticizing upon on this territory.
In the vision which is called the romantic
vision of the nation or sometimes assimilated to
the German history of the nation, nation is first an idea.
Nation is created from a culture
which is defined as bringing a collectivity, a nation.
German nation as an idea was existing before the German nation-state.
And, all the dynamic of the German history was to territorialize this nation,
and that's why Germany met so many difficulties for
getting united, and for creating a German nation state.
You understand the risk of this second option which is ethnic cleansing,
which is maybe even genocide as it did take place in the German history.
That's why the first model has probably been considered as the most functional.
And this is this territorial vision of nation which prevails now and
which was considered a model for building nation states everywhere around the world.
But the question is,
is it possible to explore this vision of territorialization of politics?
And this leads me to the second question.
That's to say, is the territorialization of politics, something internal?
My answer is clearly, no.
This vision of territory is now clearly challenged and
questioned both from tradition and
from modernity.
From tradition, as I mentioned, many histories, many kinds of societies and
culture don't accept this vision of territorialization of politics.
And that's why nation states are collapsing in many African countries.
And the renewal of tribal, ethnic and
religious commitments take a very great place
as a factor of challenging this vision, Western European vision of politics.
But modernity is also challenging this construction.
Is territory an instrument so
efficient by now, is borderline working
as it was some centuries or even some decades ago?
Now borderline can be transgressed, borderline can be ignored.
And with modernity, with globalization,
we observe so many ways of ignoring borderlines.
And for building up transnational relations,
as we will see a little bit further.
This new transnational relations creates what is commonly called transversality.
And in which the famous Indian American
sociologist Appadurai described, and
also the French novelist Edouard Glissant.
In which the idea is that now, by now,
people have more and more several identities,
with a traditional vision of territories and
of politics, identity is given.
Prior identity is given by nation and
by the territory as we defined.
But now an individual is more and
more involved into different
kind of identities is shaping and
developing a plural identity,
volatile identity.
This is probably the first step on the way of the end of territory.
This is probably the first factor of instability in our new global order.
[MUSIC]
Explora nuestro catálogo
Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.
Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
