Territory and territoriality: retrospect and prospect

Theorising the causal impacts of social frontiers: The social and psychological implications of discontinuities in the geography of residential mix

“…Thus, to ignore territoriality ‘is to leave unexamined many of the forces moulding human spatial organisation’ (Sack, 1983: 55). Since Sack’s landmark article, a large political geography literature on territoriality has emerged, though much of this work is theoretical or qualitative, and has tended to focus on political boundaries at the scale of entire regions or countries (Storey, 2020), rather than at the neighbourhood level (for a notable exception, see Sibley’s, 1995 discussion of the links between community spatial boundaries and the development of residents’ social identities). Hence, various authors (Kramer, 2017; Legewie and Schaeffer, 2016) have lamented the lack of quantitative research on how neighbourhoods border.…”

“…Thus, a corollary of P3 is that social frontiers provide the spatial structure to contain and mould political and administrative events, becoming the focal point for ideological messaging and protest. Speaking about borders more generally, Storey (2020: 14) notes that they ‘become discursive devices so that defending, sealing, and controlling them serve as rallying cries for political groups’. Moreover, ‘Territorially transgressive acts, whether protest marches or the painting of graffiti, can be employed to reclaim space and to assert basic rights and identities’ (Storey, 2020: 19).…”

Geographies of nationalism

“…These problems have unique contemporary expressions, but the broader set of border-making practices is a key focus of scholarship on the geographies of nationalism and nationalism studies more broadly. For example, the hate-mongering of professed nationalists was a topic of special concern in Euro-American scholarship following the brutal conflicts surrounding the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s (Brubaker, 1995, 1996; Campbell, 1998; Dahlman, 2005; Dahlman and Williams, 2010; Judah, 2000; Kecmanović, 2002; O’Loughlin and Kolossov 2002; Ó Tuathail, 1996; Ó Tuathail and Dahlman, 2004; Pavković, 1997; Toal and Dahlman, 2011).…”

Rethinking and Decolonizing Theories, Policies, and Practice of Health from the Global South

“…Taken as a whole, these structures and processes converge to produce what we call Frankenstein health systems, which are biomedicalized, bureaucratic, and oriented toward treatment, insurance, and profit. They are perceived to be external to society and reproduce the mistreatment, violence, and structural racism over plurinational and intercultural territories and territorialities, 24 accompanied by epidemiologic and socioenvironmental polarization. None of these cumulative reforms resolves the question of social and health inequities that are intertwined and overlaid with social class, race/ethnicity and gender, nor do they respond to collective health determinants in the region.…”

“…In regard to territory, 24 understood as the space where life is developed and health is socioenvironmentally constructed, Integrated Care for Health and Well-Living should be the center of a health system that advances policies for the promotion of well-living. In this territory, modes of life and processes that either promote or impair collective health are expressed, and, consequently, they reconfigure the architecture of the system.…”