The Dictionary of Human Geography (86 page)

Read The Dictionary of Human Geography Online

Authors: Michael Watts

BOOK: The Dictionary of Human Geography
11.46Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
globe
A solid sphere; in geography, the globe refers to the Earth itself or a physical model of it (although the Earth?s actual form as an oblate spheroid has been known since Newton theorized it in his Principia and French field scientists demonstrated it in 1736). The globe is a conventional symbol of geographical science, the geographer traditionally pictured measuring distances with dividers placed on a terrestrial globe. Celestial globes showing the pattern of forms in the visible heavens have long been paired with geographical globes. Recognition of the Earth?s sphericity is dated to Eratosthenes (276 195 bce), but only celestial globes sur vive from Antiquity, and were used in Chinese and Islamic science too. No terrestrial globes pre date the European Renaissance, although it is a nineteenth century myth that before Columbus the Earth was believed to be flat. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Construction of terrestrial globes is de scribed in Ptolemy?s second century ad book: Geography, known in the West from the late fourteenth century. The earliest existing ter restrial globe dates from 1492, made by a Nuremburg merchant knowledgeable about Portuguese oceanic navigations. Circumnavi gation of the globe in 1522 produced a scien tific and diplomatic demand for model globes, although their bulkiness and the size required for detailed representation of seas and coasts severely limited their practical navigational use on board ship (Brotton, 1997). Globe sets of terrestrial, celestial and armillary spheres (see cosmography) were objects of beauty, status and display as much as scientific instruments (cf. sciENTific instrumentation) in the early modern world, and the largest globes were made for monarchs such as Louis XIV of France, or as public spectacles; for example; in the great (?world?) exhibitions of the nine teenth and twentieth centuries. The globe remains an icon of power as much as an edu cational object today, signifying control over the space that it represents. Model globes or globe images are thus common in advertising and entertainment as an indicator of international reach and significance, and are used by airlines, communications corporations and at self consciously international events such as exhibi tions, fairs and sports spectacles (Pickles, 2004). (NEW PARAGRAPH) The discourse of globalization draws on the idea and image of the globe as a symbol of connectedness and unity, drawing on an asso ciation of the globe image with cosmopolit anism. Since the appearance of satellite images of Earth, ?thinking globally? has become a mantra of environmentalist discourse, while the globe has become in some respects a banal object, appearing on balloons, key fobs and other playthings (Cosgrove, 2001). dco (NEW PARAGRAPH) Suggested reading (NEW PARAGRAPH) Cosgrove (2001); Woodward (2006). (NEW PARAGRAPH)
glocalization
This awkward adversary of spell check programs globally has been used in three quite different ways in debates over globalization. First, it has proved useful for critics of what Gillian Hart calls the ?impact model? of global economic integration (Hart, 2003). Challenging the idea of global capitalism simply entering and transforming local regions, geographers such as Erik Swyngedouw have thus invoked glocalization to describe the dialectical LocaL gLobaL re lations through which local regions mediate and change global processes even as they are remade and rescaled themselves (Swyngedouw, 2001, 2004a, 2006). Second, social theorists who are interested in the development of contemporary cultural hyb rids refer to glocalization as a way of exam ining syncretic mixes and other forms of so called heterogenization that are obscured by visions of global cultural homogenization (Featherstone, 1995; see Hybridity). And third, the most banal appeals to glocalization are from business strategists who talk about the need to ?glocalize? big brands so that they can be better targeted at particular local mar kets (e.g. vegetarian Big Macs in India). ms (NEW PARAGRAPH)
governable space
Geographical space shaped and organized in ways that make it amenable to technologies of government. The term was used by Rose (1999c) in his development and extension of Foucault?s ideas about government and governmentaL ity. Rose argues that ?governing does not just act on a pre existing thought world with its natural divisions?; rather, ?to govern is to cut experience in certain ways, to bring new facets and forces, new intensities and relations into being? (1999, p. 31). This involves ?the mak ing up of governable spaces: populations, na tions, societies, economies, classes, families, schools, factories, individuals? (1991, p. 31). Governable spaces are not, however, ?fabri cated counter to experience?. On the contrary, they ?make new kinds of experience possible, produce new modes of perception, invest percepts with affects, with dangers and oppor tunities, with saliences and attractions? (1999, p. 32; cf. affect). Rose distinguishes three dimensions to the analysis of governable space (1999, pp. 34 40). These are: (NEW PARAGRAPH) Territorializing governmental thought through, for example, the formation of (NEW PARAGRAPH) national ?societies? and ?territories?. Smaller scale territorializations such as the city and the region can also be traced (cf. territoriality). (NEW PARAGRAPH) Spatializing the gaze of governors through technologies of vision and visuauty, and particularly cartography and the use of cartographic reason (Pickles, (NEW PARAGRAPH) 2004). (NEW PARAGRAPH) Modelling the space of government. This (NEW PARAGRAPH) typically takes two forms: isotropic (NEW PARAGRAPH) models and depth modeLs. Isotropic models conceptualize space as ?the same everywhere?. This might involve the use of plans, grids and surveys to tame space and make it comprehensible to rational ities of government. Isotropic models are particularly important in the biopoutics of colonialism, where they enabled the extension of Western forms of govern mental rationality and judicial sover eignty into the spaces of racialized ?Others? (Olund, 2002). The model of political economy, on the other hand, involves a depth model with ?hidden? de terminants, such as the ?law? of supply and demand, that can be distinguished from the surface appearance of things. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Space is thus made governable through the application of specific technologies and prac tices, including population monitoring, statis tics, surveying and cadastral mapping. On the other hand, despite the prevalence of such abstract and calculative techniques, bodily violence remains a widespread mech anism for the production of governable space, as shown by Watts? (2006) study of the Niger Delta. jpa (NEW PARAGRAPH) Suggested reading (NEW PARAGRAPH) Olund (2002); Pickles (2004); Rose (1999); Watts (2006). (NEW PARAGRAPH)
governance
A term that is sometimes used loosely to mean simply government, but more precisely refers to the process of social and economic coordination, management and ?steering?. Under this umbrella definition may be found a number of sometimes contra dictory usages. At its broadest, governance can mean any kind of coordination between organ izations, parts of organizations, groups and individuals, ranging from hierarchical ?com mand and control? systems to decentralized forms of interaction (such as market forms of exchange). Most commonly, however, gov ernance refers to forms of inter organizational coordination modelled neither on hierarchies nor on markets but on networks, especially where these are ?self organizing?. For Jessop, governance is ?the ??self organization of inter organizational relations?? ? (1997, p. 59), while Rhodes defines it as ?self organizing, interor ganizational networks? (Rhodes, 1997, p. 53). Rhodes expands this definition as follows: (NEW PARAGRAPH) Interdependence between organizations. Governance is broader than government, covering non state actors. Changing the boundaries of the state meant the bound aries between public, private and volun tary sectors became more shifting and opaque. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Continuing interactions between net work members, caused by the need to exchange resources and negotiate shared purposes. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Game like interactions, rooted in trust and regulated by rules of the game nego tiated and agreed by network partici pants. (NEW PARAGRAPH) A significant degree of autonomy from the state. Networks are not accountable to the state; they are self organizing. Although the state does not occupy a sovereign position, it can indirectly and imperfectly steer networks. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Such definitions make it possible to speak of a shift from government (coordination through hierarchy) to governance (coordin ation through networks). Like Rhodes, most writers on governance take the view that net works may include a wide variety of organiza tions and are not limited only to state institutions. Indeed, one of the central pro positions of governance research is that those involved in the generation and implementa tion of public policy are not only the formal agencies of government, but may include pri vate firms, NGOs, voluntary organizations, faith and community based groups and grass roots campaigns. In part, this merely recog nizes that the coordination of complex social systems and the steering of societal develop ment have never been the responsibilities of the state alone. Most writers, though, go fur ther and argue that the state has become less prominent and that non state organizations have become relatively more important within the coordination process. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Reducing the role of the state has also been an important goal of efforts by international deveLopment organizations to promote what they term ?good governance?. The World Bank and the internationaL monetary fund in particular have often made development as sistance to poorer countries conditional on programmes of public sector reform. In this context, ?good governance? involves transpar ency and accountability in public administra tion, the efficient use of public resources, participation in decision making and respect for the rule of law. Critics (e.g. Evans, 2004) object that these reforms require governments in developing countries to adopt inappropriate Western models of public administration, to reduce public expenditure and to privatize the provision of goods and services, leading to detrimental impacts on the lives of poorer people (cf. privatization). In both developing and developed countries the shift from govern ment to governance and the increased public role of non state actors has raised concerns about the lack of democratic control over decision making and policy implementation. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Research on the geographies of gover nance has focused on two main overlapping themes: (NEW PARAGRAPH) The role of networks. Rhodes? own work on ?policy networks? has been adapted and supplemented by other approaches to examine, for example, processes of urban development (McGuirk, 2000). Research has also focused on the grow ing use of inter agency partnerships as an institutionalized expression of networked governance (Geddes, 2006) and on inter urban networks (Leitner, Pavlik and Sheppard, 2002). (NEW PARAGRAPH) The ?re scaling? of governance. Early ac (NEW PARAGRAPH) counts of the shift from government to governance linked it to the ?hollowing out? of the state, which was said to involve the loss of central state functions to both supra national scales (e.g. the European Union) and sub national scales (e.g. au tonomous regions, local bodies). The na ture of governance processes at sub national spatial scales has been examined in detail in urban and regionaL geog raphy (Painter and Goodwin, 2000; Jones, 2001; Brenner, 2004). One strand of this work focuses explicitly on ?multi level governance?, highlighting relations between local or regional, national and supranational scales (e.g. Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). jpa (NEW PARAGRAPH) Suggested reading (NEW PARAGRAPH) Brenner (2004); Jessop (2000); Painter (2000); McGuirk (2004). (NEW PARAGRAPH)
governmentality
A concept devised by the French thinker Michel Foucault (1926 84) to describe the practices of government of a population as they emerged in europe in the modern period. Foucault used the term to describe the particular practices of the state under the organizational regime that he termed ?security'. Government is thus not a property of the space, but the performance of its power in a historically and geogra phically specific way. Foucault?s notion of disciplinary power required the enclosure, circumscription, partition and control of space, while security was concerned with open ing up spaces to allow circulation and passage. This requires regulation, but of a minimal kind. In Foucault?s terms, discipline is isolat ing, working on measures of segmentation, while security seeks to incorporate and to dis tribute more widely (see also security). The practices particular to this model of govern mental organization are what Foucault means by governmentality. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Foucault's researches on governmentality emerged in the late 1970s as part of his project of understanding the birth of the modern human subject. He was therefore interested in the way in which humans both as individ ual bodies and as the collective body of popu lation were governed. This government was both government of the self by the self, to which his last works on technologies of the self and ethics speak, and government by others. His works on governmentality itself, in lecture courses from 1978 and 1979 (Fou cault, 2007 [2004], 2008 [2004]), from which the lecture ?Governmentality? (1991) is extracted, concentrate on government is as it is exercised in political sovereignty, political rule. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Foucault traces the emergence of govern mentality historically, suggesting three main sources: the Christian pastoral, diplomatic military techniques in early modern Europe and the police. The first provides a model for codes of conduct and the concern for the population as a flock; the second looks at the techniques of external governmental relations; and the third at internal mechanisms of the policing or ordering of a society. Foucault understands the ?police? as something much more than a uniformed force for the preven tion and detection of crime but, rather, as what allows the functioning of a society or polity as a whole (cf. policing). In this sense it is closer to the analyses of Hegel, Adam Smith or Adam Ferguson, with a concern for things including public infrastructure such as roads and bridges, pricing mechanisms, and public health and property. In each, he is con cerned with how government is interested in ?each and all? individual bodies subject to governmental procedures, and the population measured and calculated through larger scale campaigns (Foucault, 1988). In both, the practices are tied to the development of know ledge, which in turn conditions the practices themselves. (NEW PARAGRAPH) In order to understand the transition from earlier sovereign models of political power to discipline and security or government, Foucault does not propose a linear narrative. Rather, he suggests that we understand this model as a triangle of sovereignty discipline government (governmental management), whose primary target is population, whose principal form of knowledge is poLiticaL economy, and whose essential mechanism or technical means of operating are apparatuses of security. Conceiving of these three ?soci eties' not on a linear model but, rather, as a space of political action allows us to inject historical and geographical specificity into Foucault?s narrative. Different places and different times might be closer to one node or another, while recognizing that this is a generally useful and transferable model of analysis. Although Foucault's work is largely tied to France and Germany, and dependent on better known historical transitions such as that between feudaLism and capitaLism, the birth of modern philosophy and schisms in the church, some writers have used his ideas to look at places that did not follow such chronologies. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Foucault's work on governmentality has been widely taken up across the human sciences, including human geography. Key works by his colleagues in France have been collected in The Foucault effect (Burchell, Gordon and Miller, 1991) and collections of writings developing and augmenting his researches have continued to appear (see, e.g., Barry, Osborne and Rose, 1996; Dean, 1999; Walters and Larner, 2004). Geogra phers have looked at a range of spaces through a governmentality perspective, in cluding those that exceed Foucault?s largely eurocentric perspective (Braun, 2000; Hannah, 2000, Corbridge, Williams, Srivas tava and Veron, 2005). These have largely been developments of the original lecture on the topic, and related writings (i.e. Foucault, 1988), so it is likely that the publication of the full lecture courses (Foucault, 2007 [2004], 2008 [2004]), with their rich analyses, will (NEW PARAGRAPH) reinvigorate this sub field (see Lemke, 2001; Elden, 2007b; Legg, 2007b). se (NEW PARAGRAPH) Suggested reading (NEW PARAGRAPH) Burchell, Gordon and Miller (1991); Dean (1999); Foucault (1988, 1991); Huxley (2007). (NEW PARAGRAPH)

Other books

In the Silks by Lisa Wilde
Freeing Her by A. M. Hargrove
Cimarron, Denver Cereal Volume 4 by Claudia Hall Christian
The Enthusiast by Charlie Haas
The Gossip File by Anna Staniszewski
Grift Sense by James Swain
The Tigress of Forli by Elizabeth Lev
First Beast by Faye Avalon