Penrose (J.) - Nations, States and Homelands-1
Penrose (J.) - Nations, States and Homelands-1
Penrose (J.) - Nations, States and Homelands-1
# ASEN 2002
ABSTRACT. This article is a response to growing recognition that the role of territory
has been neglected in recent explorations of nationalism. To improve understanding of
how and why territory has been significant to the development of nationalist thought,
this article advances two closely related arguments. The first is that the ideology of
nationalism is, itself, a product of attempts to merge two very different views about the
value of territory and, consequently, two different practices of territoriality. Secondly,
I argue that the main lines of division in explanations of nationalism reflect the differential privileging of one view of the significance of territory, and one practice of
territoriality, over the other. To substantiate these assertions, the article begins by
identifying the latent powers of space and outlining the process of territoriality that
allows human beings to harness these powers. This is followed by a discussion of how
nationalism as part of the shift to modernity contributed to a major transformation
in the general significance of territory and territoriality. Drawing on both pre-modern
and modern views, the article demonstrates how different understandings of the significance of territory and territoriality help to define the spectrum of nationalist
thought that has emerged from the eighteenth-century work of Herder and Rousseau.
Through this geographical lens, the article as a whole reveals the profoundly territorial
quality of nationalism and thus confirms the view that neither nationalist ideology nor
practice can be understood without reference to the spatial powers which it mobilises
and creates.
Introduction
This article is based on the observation that general acceptance of the signicance of territory to nationalism has not been balanced by an understanding of just what it is that makes territory so signicant to this ideology.
To address this disjunction, I offer a twofold argument about the role that
territory has played in the development of nationalist thought.1 First, I
suggest that the ideology of nationalism is, itself, a product of attempts to
merge two very different views about the value of territory and, consequently,
278
Jan Penrose
two different practices of territoriality.2 Second, I argue that the main lines
of division in explanations of nationalism reect the differential privileging
of one aspect of territory and one practice of territoriality over the other. In
the course of the article, the usefulness of this perspective is illustrated by
demonstrating that different understandings of territory and territoriality are
intimately bound up with the different conceptions of nations, states and
homelands that are so central to nationalist thought.
To build this argument, I begin by identifying what I see as the latent
powers of space and then reviewing the process of territoriality whereby
human beings harness these latent powers through the creation of territories.
Against this backdrop, I illustrate how nationalism as part of the shift to
modernity contributed to a major transformation in the general significance
of territory and territoriality. Finally, I outline how different understandings
of the significance of territory and territoriality help to define the spectrum of
nationalist thought which has emerged from the eighteenth-century work of
Herder and Rousseau.
The latent powers of space and territoriality
To understand the signicance of territory or any of its manifestations such
as nations, states, landscapes or homelands it is useful to begin by thinking
about the raw material which supports these constructs. This raw material is
something that is called `space' but which has proven remarkably difcult to
dene.3 For some, the discrediting of `absolute space' (Blaut 1961) has
spawned relational concepts which view space as something that is `folded
into' social relations through practical activities (see Harvey 1996). For
others, it has provoked calls for the abandonment of an autonomous science
of the spatial in favour of a new concept of `spacetime' that can explain how
time and space are bound together to constitute uneven and asymmetric
constellations of power (see Massey 1993). To me, both of these conceptualisations highlight the difculty of denition because they continue to rely
on the existence of something which can be `folded into' or `bound together'
with other concepts or things. As a working alternative, this article is
informed by a conception of space as structures of the real world (as identied
and interpreted through experience), which are themselves slow processes of
long duration (after Shaefer 1953: 232). According to this denition, space
has referents that exist outside of discursive construction but these are not
trapped in universalised interpretations or in immutable notions of essence.
From this perspective, space holds two sources of latent power for human
beings. First, it comprises the substance that is fundamental to human life on
this planet. Through its constitution of land, water and atmosphere, space
encompasses the basic prerequisites of human survival: the food that we eat,
the water that we drink, the air that we breathe and the resources for protecting ourselves. The existence of these things reflects the material dimension
279
of space, but the deployment of these qualities (for example, the identification
of what constitutes food and its procurement) is relational. This relationship
between space and human life in any form means that space is a source of
latent material power: the power to sustain human life. Second, space is a
source of latent emotional power. When the substantive qualities of space (for
example, its physical features) are filtered through human experiences of time
and process (the relational dimension of space) they have the capacity to
invoke or release an emotional response. For example, where space is
perceived as beautiful it moves us; where it is perceived as threatening it
frightens us; where it is perceived as powerful we respect it.
Human beings may respond to the latent material and emotional qualities
of space wherever they encounter them but they only begin to harness these
sources of power when they transform space into places and territories. As
this suggests, place and territory are quite different from space. In my opinion
(and post-structuralist protestations aside), space is present whether anyone
knows about it or not, but space only becomes a place when it acquires a
`perceptual unity' (May 1973: 212; cf. Tuan 1977; Gibson-Graham 1996), and
it only becomes a territory when it is delimited in some way. In other words,
both place and territory refer to space that has been defined in some way and,
though a territory is also a place, not all places are territories. The creation of
a territory creates a place that did not exist previously and both entities can
exist at one point in time but not others (Paasi 1995: 44; Sack 1986: 16). As
the process of bounding space suggests, territories are the product of human
agency and this agency is usually referred to as `territoriality'.
Historically, territoriality has been conceptualised in one of two ways
(Storey 2001: 920), both of which have relevance to nationalist thought. The
first, and now largely discredited, view is that human territoriality is a
natural, instinctive phenomenon. According to this view, the physical environment produces discrete groups of distinctive people and it moulds
genetically programmed behaviour in space. Thus, humans like other
animals are assumed to have an in-built territorial urge or an inner
compulsion to acquire and defend space (Ardrey 1967; Morris 1973 and 1994;
Dawkins 1976). The widespread rejection of this view of territoriality is based
on both its deterministic foundations and related assertions about the
inevitability of conflict and intolerance as a response to human differences.
In contrast, the second and much more widely accepted view of human
territoriality is that it represents a geographic strategy that connects society
and space. According to this view:
territoriality . . . [is] the attempt by an individual or group to affect, inuence or
control people, phenomena and relationships by delimiting and asserting control over
a geographic area . . . called a territory. (Sack 1986: 19)
280
Jan Penrose
281
282
Jan Penrose
Through a process of symbolic transference, specic places become synonymous with the society's rootedness there. As such, histories, memories and
myths are effective means of binding people together and of binding them to
specic territories. Like the other ways of harnessing the emotional powers
of space, these deep-seated connections are frequently portrayed and understood as `natural'. It is worth noting, however, that social processes and
conditions are capable, in their own right, of generating strong links between
people and place (Harvey 1996): thus, removal of the legitimising cloak of
`nature' will not eliminate human attachments to specic places.
In summary, territoriality is a significant form of power. This is because
it creates territories which are seen to satisfy both the material requirements
of life and the emotional requirements of belonging of placing oneself
in both time and space. To a remarkable extent, our understanding of who
we are is grounded in where we come from and where we are. For human
beings, some measure of control over a territory, whatever form it takes,
has been constructed as fundamental to a sense of control over one's self
and, by extrapolation, to a society's control over itself (cf. Sack 1986). In
combination, the qualities outlined above go a long way towards explaining
why people exercise strategies of territoriality to create and maintain
territories.
283
284
Jan Penrose
285
for forming new nation-states when this occurs. Instead of abandoning the
pursuit of an impossible ideal namely, the creation of discrete and uniform
nations that fit perfectly within the territory of a state nationalism encourages the view that it is a specific nation-state that is faulty (Penrose 1994).
This means that the demise of some nation-states simply leads to the creation
of new ones and, in consequence, the dominance of nation-states in shaping
the global geo-political order remains unaltered.
In all of these ways, nationalism constitutes an historically innovative and
very powerful form of territoriality. Indeed, as Tom Nairn (1996: 80)
suggests, nationalism is more than just another doctrine: it also defines the
`general condition of the modern body politic' and constitutes a fundamental
element of the `climate of contemporary political and social thought'. As I
have shown, much of this strength is derived from combining the latent
material and emotional powers of space through practices of territoriality
which involve continuous attempts to merge cultural and territorial identities.
Nationalist thought: from territory to nations and homelands
Where nationalism as political practice has thrived on the exible merging of
different ideas about the value of territory and different views of territoriality,
the same has not been true for the development of a coherent theory of the
underlying ideology. In other words, where confusion of terms and shifting
rhetoric have worked well for the practice of nationalism, they have undermined theoretical attempts to explain the phenomenon. Montserrat Guibernau
(1996: 3) acknowledges the `fragmentary nature of current approaches' to the
study of nationalism and suggests that this `originates from their inability to
merge its two fundamental attributes'. She goes on to identify the rst of these
attributes as `the political character of nationalism as an ideology defending
the notion that state and nation should be congruent', and the second as `its
capacity to be a provider of identity for individuals conscious of forming a
group based upon a common culture, past, project for the future and attachment to a concrete territory' (cf. Geertz 1973; Hutchinson 1994; Smith 1998).
When these two attributes of nationalism are viewed through a geographical
lens it becomes clear that they bear a strong resemblance to the two forms of
territoriality which I have outlined above. In many ways, the disjunction that
Guibernau so usefully identies reinforces the view that an understanding
of nationalist thought rests heavily on an understanding of territory and
territoriality.
What I suggest in the next few pages is that the history of nationalist
thought can be seen as a history of attempts to explain or, importantly, to
prescribe how these two different territorialities work together. My argument here is that different theories of nationalism reflect different understandings of how and why people use territory to mobilise power around
emotional and material resources. As I demonstrate below, these differences
286
Jan Penrose
For Herder, his intellectual descendants and virtually all nationalists, territory
is inseparable from the people and the nation is the product of this immutable
bonding (for example, Hayes 19267 and 1931; Kohn 1967 [1944]; van den
Berg 1978; Shils 1957). For these people, the homeland is the geographical
dimension of the nation in mind and space. From this perspective, the function of nation-states is to permit the natural evolution of fundamental units of
humanity nations without outside interference. Accordingly, it is argued
that the geographical distribution of the nation should dene the boundaries
of the state and the function of the state should be to protect the nation.
287
Although few contemporary scholars support the view that nations are
natural divisions of humanity, this perspective retains relevance to contemporary debates for two reasons. The first is that the primordialist conception
of nations as essential has become deeply embedded in `common sense'
understandings of the world. This is especially true in places where the nationstate has effectively structured geopolitical organisation for long periods of
time and among people who look to nationalist ideology to redress their
positions of marginality. As long as the belief that nations are natural continues to inform understandings of homelands and states as well as political
practice, it retains relevance to nationalist thought. The second reason that
primordialist views continue to figure in contemporary debates is the simple
fact that they constitute the foil against which alternative perspectives have
been developed. Accordingly, an understanding of primordialism is a necessary prerequisite to sound consideration of different conceptions of the relationship between territory, nations and homelands.
Functional/modernist theories of nationalism: privileging the state
In contrast to the primordialist focus on the emotional power of territory, the
second major line of thinking about nations has been preoccupied with the
material and/or functional powers of territory. This emphasis is consistent
with a primary interest in states rather than nations. Here again, there is
disagreement about whether human territoriality is instinctive or strategic,
but proponents of this perspective share the view that nations are the product
of state-formation and not the motivation behind this process (see Breuilly
1993; Gellner 1983; Hobsbawm 1990; Hroch 1985; Nairn 1981). This privileging of the state over the nation is clearly reected in Rousseau's ideas about
the role of territory in the creation of nation-states.
Rousseau (171278), like Herder and others of the time, believed that the
qualities of a territory had an influence on the societies that could develop
there. For example, he begins Book III, Chapter VIII of The Social Contract
(1947 [1762]: 64) with the assertion that: `Liberty, not being a fruit of all
climates, is not within the reach of all people.' A few paragraphs later he
elaborates this position as follows:
Unfriendly and barren lands, where the product does not repay the labour, should
remain desert and uncultivated, or peopled only by savages; lands where men's labour
brings in no more than the exact minimum necessary to subsistence should be
inhabited by barbarous peoples: in such places all polity is impossible. Lands where
the surplus of product over labour is only middling are suitable for free peoples;
those in which the soil is abundant and fertile and gives a great product for a little
labour call for monarchical government . . . (1947 [1762]: 656)
As this suggests, Rousseau did not share Herder's primary concern with
cultural development or the formation of an identity that was linked to a specic territory. Instead, Rousseau was interested in the levels of productivity
288
Jan Penrose
that a territory could support and the form of government that this could
sustain. This very different attitude to the role of territory in state-formation
becomes even clearer in the following quotation:
A body politic may be measured in two ways either by the extent of its territory, or
by the number of its people; and there is, between these two measurements, a right
relation which makes the State really great. The men make the State and the territory
sustains the men; the right relation therefore is that the land should sufce for the
maintenance of the inhabitants, and that there should be as many inhabitants as the
land can maintain. (1947 [1762]: Book II, Chapter X, 39, emphasis added)
As this quotation suggests, Rousseau believed that it is the size of the state,
and the carrying capacity of the land that makes up the state, which determines population. Rousseau's preoccupation with the state means that he
does not provide a denitive statement about just what a nation is (Cobban
1964: 1078), but it is clear that he does not see it as an extension of the family
or as a culturally entrenched phenomena. In the Geneva Manuscript, he
writes that:
Although the functions of the father of a family and of the prince should tend to the
same objective, it is by ways so different; their duties and their rights are so distinct,
that one cannot confuse them without forming the most false ideas about the
principles of society. (Geneva Manuscript, Book I, Chapter V; as quoted in Masters
1968: 278)
In The Social Contract, he is more specic about the capacity for deeply
established cultures to inhibit the formation of a body politic:
What people, then, is a t subject for legislation? One which, already bound by some
unity of origin, interest, or convention, has never yet felt the real yoke of law; one that
has neither customs nor superstitions deeply ingrained, one which stands in no fear of
being overwhelmed by sudden invasion; one which, without entering into its neighbours' quarrels, can resist each of them single-handed, or get the help of one to repel
another; one in which every member may be known by every other, and there is no need
to lay on any man burdens too heavy for a man to bear; one which can do without other
peoples and without which all others can do; one which is neither rich nor poor, but selfsufcient; and lastly, one which unites the consistency of an ancient people with the
docility of a new one. (1947 [1762]: Book II, Chapter X, 41, emphasis added)
289
For Rousseau, and many of his intellectual heirs up to the present day, it is
the material powers associated with territory that define the state, and the
boundaries of the state that define those of the nation. According to this
second main line of thinking, a nation is the citizens of a state and the purpose
of a nation is to ensure the continuity and legitimacy of the state. In keeping
with this view of territory and territoriality, a homeland is the area that
comprises the state of citizenship. As this suggests, this perspective transfers
the homeland from the realm of cultural attachment to that of politics. Here,
the homeland is separated from the nation and becomes instead an attribute
of the state.
From Herder and Rousseau to contemporary nationalist thought
In many ways, the different perspectives on territory and territoriality
advanced by Herder and Rousseau can be traced through to contemporary
debates about what nationalism is and, more specically, about what
constitutes nations and when they originate. However, the lines of continuity
are not perfectly linear or consistently strong and this is especially true in
terms of the place that territory and territoriality have occupied in nationalist
thought. To a considerable degree, it seems to me that geographers and
geopoliticians bear responsibility for a gradual displacement of the territorial
dimension of nationalism in the latter half of the twentieth century. There are
two main reasons for this and both relate to the negative consequences of
actually applying geographical ideas about territory, power and state
formation.
First of all, geographical ideas, like those advanced by Freidrich Ratzel
(18441904) and Halford Mackinder (18611947), are deeply implicated in
the justification of European colonial expansion (cf. Godlewska and Smith
1994). Most obviously, Ratzel's reliance on a `natural' and instinctive notion
of territoriality led him to conclude that territorial expansion was essential
to the survival of a state if states did not grow, they would die (Ratzel, as
cited in James and Martin 1972: 16871). As David Livingstone (1992: 200)
explains, `Ratzel believed he had disclosed the natural laws of the territorial
growth of states and he happily located the contemporary colonial thrust of
the European powers in Africa as the manifestation of their quest for
Lebensraum'. Mackinder shared a similar concern with providing scientific
justification for foreign policy but he also viewed the teaching of geography
as an imperial task (Livingstone 1992: 1945). According to Hudson (1977:
12), `the study and teaching of the new geography at an advanced level was
vigorously promoted at [the end of the nineteenth century] largely, if not
mainly, to serve the interests of imperialism in its various aspects including
territorial acquisition, economic exploitation, militarism and the practice of
class and race domination'.
The second context in which the application of geographical notions of
territory and territoriality produced destructive outcomes was through the
290
Jan Penrose
291
292
Jan Penrose
293
From this perspective, a nation comes to be defined as a named and selfaware community of people who share elements of overlapping and shifting
cultural, political and economic identities. These identities have been
historically constructed through personal attachments to specific places
within a delineated territory and this territory may, or may not, conform to
the boundaries of a state. Here, a homeland is the territory which contains
and/or defines the places that inform a multifaceted and often evolving sense
of self, as well as a sense of belonging. Like the two formative perspectives of
nationalist thought, it seems clear that an exploration of perennialist/ethnosymbolist ideas about territory could be very useful in clarifying why
particular conceptions of nation are held and how the formation of nationstates is explained.
Conclusions
In the preceding pages, I have shown just how central understandings of
territory and strategies of territoriality have been to the development of
nationalist thought. To do so, I outlined how the creation of territories can be
used to harness and mobilise latent powers of space. Among other things, it is
the creation of territories that denes an `us' and establishes boundaries
between this `us' and all others who become `them'. Through this process, the
creation of territories has the capacity to bind people to specic places, and
people value and protect these territories as long as they continue to full
fundamental emotional and material needs.
Until the dawn of modernity, human societies developed a myriad of
different territorial strategies or territorialities to meet these needs in
culturally specific and internally consistent ways. With modernity, however,
these diverse strategies of social organisation in space became vulnerable to
the greater efficiency and growing power of new nation-states. As I have
suggested, the effectiveness of these new units is directly related to their
capacity to facilitate ongoing economic transitions. At the same time, though,
this capacity was itself directly related to the flexible ways in which nationstates mobilised popular support through the integration of cultural and
territorial identities.
As I have shown, theories of nationalism all share the common goal of
explaining how and why this process of integration was initiated and how and
why it continues to be supported. Although the role of territory in this
process has not always been considered directly, different understandings of
territory have remained implicit in explanations of nationalism. More
specifically, different understandings of territory can be seen to define the
spectrum that has shaped nationalist thought. At one extreme, scholars who
are preoccupied with the role of nations in nation-state formation also tend to
be concerned primarily with the latent emotional powers of space in the
creation of territories. At the other extreme, those who give primacy to the
294
Jan Penrose
Notes
1 In this article, the term `nationalist thought' is used in the broadest sense of ideas about the
nation, nationalist ideology and nationalism in practice. As this suggests, the focus is on
scholarship rather than practice, but because proponents of particular nationalist movements
have also written on the subject this distinction is not unproblematic. To overcome potential
confusion, I use `ideology' to refer to the specic set of convictions that dene nationalism (see
note 2) and add descriptors such as `explanation', `perspectives' and `theories' to indicate thinking
about this ideology and its application.
2 Here, `nationalist ideology' refers to the core conviction that the boundaries of a nation
(however dened) and a state (following Weber 1947) should coincide. In contrast, `nationalism'
refers to attempts to implement nationalist ideology in practice.
3 For example, David Storey's (2001) excellent work entitled Territory: The Claiming of Space,
offers no denition of space at all. Similarly, Robert Sack's 1986 work on Human Territoriality
argues that `space and time are fundamental components of human experience' and that `they are
not merely naively given facts of geographic reality' (Sack 1986: 216), but he does not provide any
denition of space (but see Sack 1973). In the fourth edition of Political Geography, Peter Taylor
295
and Colin Flint (2000: 39) also avoid denition but they do assert that `space itself is an area of
contention. Space is never just a stage upon which events unfold: there is nothing neutral about
any spatial arrangement.' For me, this last example epitomises the tendency to dene space in
relation to something else in this case the agency implicit in `spatial arrangement' is ignored such
that this term slips quietly (but inappropriately) into synonymy with space. The belief that `spatial
arrangement' logically demands the arrangement of something that already exists in some form
helps to explain why I have chosen the denition outlined in the main body of the text.
References
Agnew, James. 1994. `The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations
theory', Review of International Political Economy 1: 5380.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, James. 1986. `Nationalism and geography', in J. Anderson (ed.), The Rise of the
Modern State. Brighton: Harvester Press, 11542.
Anderson, James. 1996. `The shifting stage of politics: new medieval and postmodern
territorialities', Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14(2): 13353.
Ardrey, Robert. 1967. The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of
Property and Nations. London: Collins.
Bassin, Mark. 1987. `Race contra space: the conict between German Geopolitik and National
Socialism', Political Geography Quarterly 6: 11534.
Blaut, James M. 1961. `Space and process', The Professional Geographer 13(4): 17.
Breuilly, John. 1993. Nationalism and the State (2nd edn). Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Calhoun, Craig. 1994. `Social theory and the politics of identity', in C. Calhoun (ed.), Social
Theory and the Politics of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell, 936.
Cobban, Alfred. 1964. Rousseau and the Modern State (revised edn). London: George Allen and
Unwin.
Connor, Walker. 1994. `Man is a R
/ National animal: beyond reason: the nature of the
ethnonational bond', in his Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 196209.
Connor, Walker. 2001. `Homelands in a world of states', in M. Guibernau and J. Hutchinson
(eds.), Understanding Nationalism. Oxford: Polity Press/Blackwell, 5373.
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selsh Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. 1940. The Nuer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana.
Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It). Oxford: Blackwell.
Godlewska, A. and N. Smith (eds.). 1994. Geography and Empire. Oxford: Blackwell.
Greenfeld, L. 1992. Nationalism. Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Greengrass, M. (ed.). 1991. Conquest and Coalescence: The Shaping of the State in Early Modern
Europe. London: Arnold.
Grimsley, R. 1972. `Introduction', in Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat Social. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 195.
Guibernau, Montserrat. 1996. Nationalisms: The Nation-State and Nationalism in the Twentieth
Century. Oxford: Polity Press/Blackwell.
Guibernau, Montserrat and John Hutchinson (eds.). 2001. Understanding Nationalism. Oxford:
Polity Press/Blackwell.
Hall, J. A. and I. C. Jarvie (eds.). 1992. Transitions to Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
296
Jan Penrose
Harvey, David. 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hayes, C. J. H. 19267. `Contributions of Herder to the doctrine of nationalism', American
Historical Review 32: 71936.
Hayes, C. J. H. 1931. Historical Evolution of Nationalism. New York: Macmillan.
Herder, Johann G. van. 1968 [1784]. Reections on the Philosophy and History of Mankind,
abridged and with an Introduction by Frank E. Manuel. London and Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Hobsbawm, E. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hroch, Miroslav. 1985. Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe, trans. Ben Fowkes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, Brian. 1977. `The new geography and the new imperialism: 18701918', Antipode 9(2):
1219.
Hutchinson, John. 1994. Modern Nationalism. London: Fontana.
Jackson, Peter and Jan Penrose. 1993. `Introduction: placing ``race'' and nation', in Peter Jackson
and Jan Penrose (eds.), Constructions of Race, Place and Nation. London: UCL Press, 123.
James, P. E. and G. J. Martin. 1972. All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical Ideas (2nd
edn). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kohn, Hans. 1967 [1944]. The Idea of Nationalism (2nd edn). New York: Collier.
Livingstone, David. 1992. The Geographical Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lowenthal, David. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackenzie, W. J. M. 1976. Political Identity. London: Penguin.
Massey, Doreen. 1993. `Politics and space/time', in M. Keith and S. Pile (eds.), Place and the
Politics of Identity. London: Routledge, 14161.
Masters, Roger D. 1968. The Political Philosophy of Rousseau. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
May, Joseph A. 1973. Kant's Concept of Geography and its Relation to Geographical Thought.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McGrew, A. 1995. `World order and political space', in J. Anderson, C. Brook and A. Cochrane
(eds.), A Global World? Reordering Political Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1164.
Morris, Desmond. 1973. Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour. London: Jonathan
Cape.
Morris, Desmond. 1994. The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Guide to Human Behaviour. London:
Vintage.
Murphy, D. T. 1994. `Space, race and geopolitical necessity: geopolitical rhetoric in German
colonial revanchism, 19191933', in A. Godlewska, and N. Smith (eds.), Geography and
Empire. Oxford: Blackwell, 17387.
Nairn, Tom. 1981. The Break-up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-nationalism (2nd edn). London: Verso.
Nairn, Tom. 1996. `Scotland and Europe', in G. Eley and R. G. Suny (eds.), Becoming National.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79104.
Ozkirimli, Umut. 2000. Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction. London: Macmillan.
Paasi, A. 1995. `Constructing territories, boundaries and regional identities', in Thoman Forsberg
(ed.), Contested Territory. Border Disputes at the Edge of the Former Soviet Empire. Aldershot:
Edward Elgar, 4261.
Penrose, Jan. 1994. ```Mon pays ce n'est pas un pays'' full stop: the concept of nation as a
challenge to the nationalist aspirations of the Parti Quebecois', Political Geography 13(2):
16181.
Penrose, Jan and Joseph A. May. 1991. `Herder's concept of nation and its relevance to
contemporary ethnic nationalism', Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 18(12): 16578.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1947 [1762]. The Social Contract and Discourses, trans. with an
introduction by G. D. H. Cole. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Ruggie, J. 1993. `Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations',
International Organisation 47: 13974.
Sack, R. 1973. `A concept of physical space in geography', Geographical Analysis 5: 1634.
297
Sack, R. 1986. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schopin, G. 1997. `The function of myths and a taxonomy of myths', in G. Hosking and G.
Schopin (eds.), Myths and Nationhood. London: Hurst & Co., 1935.
Shaefer, F. K. 1953. `Exceptionalism in geography', Annals of the American Association of
Geographers 43: 22649.
Shils, E. 1957. `Primordial, personal, sacred and civil ties', British Journal of Sociology 7: 1345.
Smith, Anthony D. 1984. `Review Article: Ethnic persistence and national transformation',
British Journal of Sociology xxxv(5): 45261.
Smith, Anthony D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, Anthony D. 1991. National Identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Smith, Anthony D. 1996. `Culture, community and territory: the politics of ethnicity and
nationalism', International Affairs 72(3): 44558.
Smith, Anthony D. 1998. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Theories of Nations
and Nationalism. London: Routledge.
Smith, Anthony D. 1999. Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Storey, David. 2001. Territory: The Claiming of Space. Harlow: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.
Taylor, Charles. 1998. `Nationalism and modernity', in John A. Hall (ed.), The State of the
Nation: Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
191218.
Taylor, Peter and Colin Flint. 2000. Political Geography (4th edn). London: Prentice Hall.
Tnnesson, Stein and Hans Antlov (eds.). 1998. Asian Forms of the Nation. Richmond: Curzon.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1975. `Geopeity: a theme in man's attachment to nature and to place', in David
Lowenthal and Martyn Bowden (eds.), Geographies of the Mind. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1139.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Van den Berg, P. 1978. `Race and ethnicity: a sociobiological perspective', Ethnic and Racial
Studies 1(4): 40111.
Walker, R. B. J. 1990. `Security, sovereignty and the challenge of world politics', Alternatives 15:
327.
Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, trans. A. R. Henderson and
Talcott Parsons. London and Edinburgh: William Hodge & Co.