[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 the population, and the third one is supporting material resources, and particularly for fooling people around the world. Let's start by the first function. That's to say, shaping, structuring a prodigal order. We have then to take into account the extreme diversity of territories and to have in mind that this, I think, the main argument, that our territorial vision, which was shaped by the European and Western history, doesn't fit 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 in the conflict and in the new international conflict which unfortunately take place now around the world. For this reason, that's 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 know definition given by Robert Sagg. When it considers territory not as a synonym of space of course, but as political instrument. In fact, territory is a political instrument, which is used by governments for controlling the 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 polity around the world and especially in the history. Empire does not correspond to this vision of space. An empire is not really a territory because an empire is not delimited by strict border lines like nation states and that's why. This is the first conflict we have to take into account. So many old empires meet so many difficulties for getting integrated into the present world order. If you take in account Russia, China, these two states, appearing states, are really old empires and meet so many difficulties for being integrated into this inter-state world order. This is the problem of Caucasus, of the problem of Ukrainia, which is well known by now, but it's also the problem of. 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 Sagg definition of territory and that's why some people in Africa like in 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 roots of the conflict and the bloody conflicts which are observed in Israel. 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 clearly 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 a very fragmented history and by this plurality and this competition among rather small nation states. But the problem in that, if territorialzation of politics is something exceptional, with something I would say historic, we can consider that, first, there is a real problem with how to build this territorialization of politic, and the second problem is what about after. And we can consider that this territorialzation of politics which plays such a role in the European history is not eternal and can be requestioned, 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 extreme 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 built progressively and state by state, with state, with territory and those people who are living on this 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 use solely in which territory is attributing the citizenship to the individuals who are precisely born on this territory. In the second version 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, nation, German nation as an idea was existing before the German nation state. And all the dynamic of the German History was to territorialze 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 did take place in the German history. That's why the first model is probably being 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 eternal? 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 territorialzation of politics, and that's why nation states are collapsing in many African countries. And the renewal of tribal, ethic, and religious commitments take very great place as a factor of challenging this vision, Western Europe 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 a borderline can be Borderlines 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. These new translational relations creates what is commonly called transversatility and in which the famous Indian American sociologist Appadurai described and also the French novelist Edouard Glissant. In which the idea is that by now, people have more and more, several identities, where's the tradition invasion of the territories and of politics, identity is given. Priority 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. These shaping and developing a plural identity, volatile identity. This is probably the first stage on the way of the end of territory. This is probably the first factor of instability in our new global. [MUSIC]
