The Language of Territorial Construction

Abstract

The author opens by stating that the modern world is marked by a conflict as between territorial identity and
the demands of globalization, a conflict that the Autonomous Region idea attempts to ameliorate, this though
it lacks precisely that capacity for overall administrative cohesion used by the Liberal Model for a State when
rejecting any validity for spatial differencing. He next speaks of territory as being the outcome of historical
stratification. The basic tools for determining spatial being ness, being grounded in repetition. Reticular cells
and the network by which they are defined are here felt to be the underpinning of spatial organization, the
networking being of two sorts, either that of lines of communication (vias) or limits i.e. bounds, boundries,
frontiers both of which exist to answer to the basic human necessities of communication and mutual
understanding. For the author there is thus much in common as between territorial structuring in its origins
and common speech. In the same wise, any historical territorial structuring must call into consideration the
demands that have been made by time itself as a determining factor in any comprehension of the same. The
outcome as fact is thus the result of an on-going process of change. Thus the walled-thus-bounded medieval
city came into being as a something different to the homogeneous territorial rural fact while the present-day
city is re-intergrating itself within the extended territory by means of its unlimited metropolitan spread. The
author thus here holds that the idea of territory as at present understood academically and administratively
runs contrary to the dynamic complexity of the reality it strives to encompass.