An Overview on Fundamental Concepts of Political Geography

INTRODUCTION

The sum of its two sections is by no means the historical geography. "Geography" in political geography is narrowly drawn: in terms that enlighten the private. In the same manner, "games" are practiced in ways that make spatial light visible. Global geography relies in particular on the twin concepts of property and territoriality. The basic principles of political geography are territoriality and territoriality, and they tie together ideas of power and space: territories as a domain which are protect, disputed and demanded against other people 's demands; in short, land. Land and land presuppose each other collectively. Without the other, it can't be one. Territoriality implies activity: protecting acts, restricting operations, excluding and including; jurisdiction is the area in which contents are required to be controlled1 But that brings us again. We need an awareness of space ties and politics to grasp sovereignty and territoriality rather than explain what they are. As geographical principles, land and territoriality have their origins, circumstances and other spatial practices; in particular, the ideas that are central to contemporary humans' geography are those related to movements and to the incorporation of people and their behavior. Likewise we have to deal with the basic principle of modern political science, the society, to grasp politics in political geography. It has a domain within which it asserts authority, has borders, and has rights to control events and what occurs within every portion of its territories. The State itself has sovereign power. Any territorial policy is therefore of vital importance for any manifestation of the territoriality advocated by a local community, company or ethnic group or whatever. [1]However, this poses the issue of how citizens are driven to protect those places and to pursue state support. It also poses the issue as to whether the state should respond. There is little meaning of territories itself, because what motivate citizens is values that are certainly real of character. In brief, we need a certain understanding of what motivates citizens and what causes land disputes. However, this interaction is often regulated socially. In and by some, still are elements of the natural universe stolen and translated into structures we may implement. Therefore, principles of social interaction are fundamental to jurisdiction and territoriality awareness. So what are we concerned about in particular? A progression of very different social classes has taken place in human culture.[2]

It is very straightforward to state key principles in political geography: territoriality and territoriality. These theories are interlinked inextricably. Via his interactions with those things we describe as territorial, territory is to be understood: that is, the practice of territoriality. Robert Sack (1983) has described it as a field-specific operation. It will then be called territorial practices of exclusionary, or of inclusions type, and the region in which one desires to control one's contents as the territory in question. In addition to territories having zone and border relations, this often implies that territories are protective zones: territories are regions that people protect by removing those actions and adding places that more specifically strengthen what they wish to defend on the territory. Examples restricted at times have a clear cultural content: the French government has aimed to restrict non-French television broadcasting. This does not mean that exclusive prosecutions are restricted to the state level , meaning that the field on which political geographers depend remains in the jurisdiction of the state. E.g. the gated communities that have become prevalent in neighborhoods of various American cities, or the greenbelt that covers any British town of every scale and which prohibits new suburban construction within its borders. The following illustration tells us that zoning on every kind of property is a territorial practice.[3]

First of all you can find out how relevant the State and its separate institutions are in the geography of regulation: the further immobilized, the more rooted, in structuring movements. Everywhere, central governments oversee movement across boundaries: individuals, goods and money movements. They can limit imports to protect their specific industries, employees and cities from foreign competition. It may also limit exports to a similar end: a leather export restriction supports the shoe manufacturing sector by increasing the costs for overseas factories while growing them for the American manufacturer. Immigration quotas for the more industrialized countries4 have been the standard and foreign investment control is now the rule. Lastly, the acquisition of companies by international firms or foreign involvement in such critical sectors, such as weapons firms, are also governed by legislation. There are many aspects that municipal bodies may do because their migration influences on regional transition. This is notwithstanding the reality that central departments of the state uphold free flow of employees and products across national frontiers and that local municipalities can not seek to meet their targets by intervening with them: to defend large local employers by banning imports of commodities by rival industries elsewhere in the region, say. Instead, several options are required to select the venue. Economic growth, the site of new urban projects, new manufacturing parks and the construction of new highways must still be the focus of a municipal authorization procedure: public inquiries, re-examination hearings, national public health agencies' complaints and so forth. Nonetheless, there is no clear partnership between the state on the one side and control in culture on the other, including influence over geography. Control has numerous shapes. In today's social life, the influence of capital is incredibly significant. It's not something that the State might not hear about. It utilizes this leverage to persuade people to do as it wants: tax cuts, discounts, complex types of obligation, the intimidation of penalties. It's also a force, though, that anybody who engages in a market or wants to buy a legislator's favors. In what urban have the resources to ban any consumers.[4]

It lacks a grasp of what energizes the democratic process in a regional context. It is not necessary to apply in the abstract to geographical interests and ventures. They have a comprehensive content every time. In fact, they are desires, behaviors and partnerships. Ultimately, as I described earlier, we must concentrate on the material world: harnessing the substances and forces that inevitably exist in order to satisfy our evolving health, refuge, love, creational expressions and so on. [5]This is why human philosophy, and our own biology, cannot neglect the connection of biology. However, this interaction is still regulated by culture. We are still linked to the world (as in development, in a narrow way) and our own selves (as in the phase of socialization), in and in our relationships with others. Our desires then take on socially influenced forms. They are becoming involved in income, incomes, land prices, commerce, labor and housing markets in today's industrialized developed societies: in other words, in priorities that make sense only because of and require the life of a capitalist system. Other issues are less clearly tied to economic progress and the financial interests of those concerned. These criteria are as varied to maintain the national reputation, defend real environments from creation, remember favored daughters or sons by providing national vacations for them, or monitor white policemen 's actions in Black quarters. All these seem to be a little distant from the money they create and share too much capital to different claimants. Their relations are in part the symbolic: acknowledging and honoring behavior (or even disregarding white policemen). The purpose is less of an instrumental nature (attaining it as a means of achieving a goal), but less of a customer nature which plays a significant symbolic function for others, by its very writing into law. These various market forms, on the other hand, are often not unrelated. Recognition challenges are also followed by mobilizing financial resources. In many American states the identification of Martin Luther King Day was an issue. The power of the national convections was one of the forms that black and white liberals pursued their aims. In other terms, if Arizona failed to acknowledge Martin Luther King Day, many trade groups decided to transfer their conferences to cities in other States and all their effects on the local hotel and restaurants industries. Likewise, black boycott of white shops in the final days of apartheid was a tradition in South Africa.[6]

authority. As organizations, the laws and principles and legal and moral standards are implied or specific. They are also important for social change and can be both impediments and motivating outlets. A strong illustration of the duality is the Finno-Russian line. In the Soviet period, both Finnish and Soviet frontier regions are traditional indicators of divided territories, peripheral zones where everything ties to their own national centers. [7]The boundaries are the same today and the methods of border guarding are rather rigid, but the boundary was no longer a major barrier to dissolution in the Soviet Union and now takes place through them, in various ways, from environmental to cultural and economic to regional planning. The claims of (postmodern) thinkers on globalization and members of IR show that spatiality or regional control structure is not only related to the sovereign state, but may also 'rush' and be manifest in any regional dimension. Power can not only be interpreted as a tool used to regulate all the locations and locations within a defined jurisdiction through people, typically the dominant social community. The influence of the networks "circulating and transmuting in a framework of variable geometry and dematerialized geography" is dispersed throughout the field of money, knowledge and picture. Power flows in knowledge codes and in "models of identity in which communities structure themselves, and citizens build their lives and determine for themselves." Agnew states that 'power forms are not often provided in one mode: that of the State's territorial nature but are created, maintained, and replicated in historical and geographical specific social practises.' Power thus resides in all human affairs and the influence of the State is focused on a broad spectrum of sources it may access.

Boundaries are markers and structures that both identify and create social classes. They do not, therefore, just distinguish classes and social networks, but still interact with each other. As mentioned by Mach, boundaries include regulatory trends and direct connection between social groups' representatives, rules about how individuals, objects and symbolic messages are shared and rules are transbounded. As boundaries, borders are the mediums and methods for social power as well as for contact and identity creation. They connect history, current , and future as entities, i.e. they create a continuum of social contact. This especially reinforces the relations between territories, nationalism and nationality. The topic of authority is important when identification – or the expression of personality is accomplished by inscribing boundary lines. Cultural scholars have researched in particular the tensions and relational ties between social classes and this issue in an environment of voluntary and coerced migration and exile has become the building of boundaries. Calhoun points out that although fundamental consideration can be about difference, identification itself is not. They don't float either. Collective identification is not spontaneously formed, but is collectively created and developed by the collective development of borders. The importance of limits is also illustrated by the fact that identities are generated by these limits. They are embedded into the collective identities, popular memories and sense of continuity across generations. Instead of having something important or natural in a specific category of individuals, ideologies sometimes are defined by a distinction between oneself and the other. Although ideology is focused on distinction, there should not be an opposition that draws a clear line between 'us' and 'them'. However, this is the case in many practical analyses in foreign affairs, historically and particularly with the action in contemporary states.[9]

Boundaries are expressions of relationships of authority. As organizations, the laws and principles and legal and moral standards are implied or specific. They are also important for social change and can be both impediments and motivating outlets. This duality is a perfect illustration of the boundary. In the Soviet period, both Finnish and Soviet frontier regions are traditional indicators of divided territories, peripheral zones where everything ties to their own national centers. The boundaries are the same today and the methods of border guarding are rather rigid, but the boundary was no longer a major barrier to dissolution in the Soviet Union and now takes place through them, in various ways, from environmental to cultural and economic to regional planning. The claims of (postmodern) thinkers on globalization and members of IR show that spatiality or regional control structure is not only related to the sovereign state, but may also 'rush' and be manifest in any regional dimension. Power can not only be interpreted as a tool used to regulate all the locations and locations within a defined jurisdiction through people, typically the dominant social community. The influence of the networks "circulating and transmuting in a framework of variable geometry and dematerialized geography" is dispersed throughout the field of money, knowledge and picture. Power flows in knowledge codes and in "models of identity in which communities structure themselves, and citizens build their lives and determine for themselves." Agnew states that 'power forms are not often provided in one mode: that of the State's territorial nature but are created, maintained, and replicated in historical and geographical specific social practices.' In all international affairs, force is also border analysis lies in understanding how the state-centered naturalization of space is created and replicated, and how the exclusions and includes between 'us' and 'them' which it means have been developed and formed traditionally in association with authority, different incidents, episodes and struggles.[10] Thus geography and words, in specific borders, and their historical nature within the sense of national speeches are a reasonable subject of research. A review of the behavior of Finnish students of geography, for example, has shown that, through their representations and definitions, they have made a great deal to form our national territory understandings and have also established divergent concepts and definitions in a way which is unique for the frontier. In short they developed geopolitical scripts which the political and military leaders of the state often use effectively.

An evaluation of the political-geographical characteristics of India as well as its important position in the Indian Ocean, its huge scale, its massive population, its strong agricultural and mineral base, its growing economy, its rapidly developing circulatory system, its technical prowess, its military reputation and its near relations with neighbors and others.

1. Agnew J. (1987). Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society, 288 pp. London: Allen & Unwin. [The first book grounding the theory of place in political geography and including interesting case studies.] 2. Agnew J. (1998). Geopolitics: Re-visioning World Politics, 150 pp. London: Routledge. [A critical introduction to current debates over ―geopolitics‖ and an exploration of geopolitical imagination in different historical and modern epochs.] 3. Agnew J., Mitchell K., and Toal G., eds. (2003). A Companion to Political Geography. Oxford: Blackwell. [Carefully selected best and recent texts picturing the state of most fields of politicalgeographical studies.] 4. Antonsich M., Kolossov V., and Pagnini M.-P., eds. (2000). Europe Between Political Geography and Geopolitics: On the Centenary of Ratzel‘s ―Politische Geographie‖ (Proceedings of international conference, Trieste, 1997). Rome: Società Geografica Italiana. [Includes a great number of recent theoretical papers and 5. Claval P. (1998). Histoire de la géographie française de 1870 à nos jours, 544 pp. Paris: Nathan. [in French.] [The best and the most recent history of geography in France including a review of the evolution of political-geographical and geopolitical ideas and their relations with other geographical disciplines.] 6. Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity Press. 7. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1845–6) The German Ideology. 8. Mitchell, K. (1993) ―Multiculturalism, or the United Colors of Capitalism.‖ Antipode, 25(4), pp. 263–94. 9. Sack, R. (1983) ―Human Territoriality: A Theory.‖ Annals, Association of American Geographers, 73(1), pp. 55–74. 10. Fischer, C.S., Jackson, R.M., Stueve, C.A., Gerson, K., Jones, L.M. and Baldassare, M. (1977) Networks and Places, New York: Free Press.

MA Geography, UGCNET rewarimail@gmail.com