State and Nation
State
There is a classic understanding that borders are defined and delivered from the highest level of state government from the core of any particular country. Decided politically, legally ratified, and marked boldly on maps of every scale, these borders attempt to “Forge and define the bounds of national culture” (Wilson/Donnan 1998). As a result of this, borderlands are often perceived to be marginal to the state, at the furthest points of its territories. This is an attitude often reinforced by media coverage of borderlands, where they are represented as intimidating and dangerous, where familiar meets “other”.
In short, states are political phenomena with the following attributes: government, organised economy, circulatory transport systems and communication systems, permanent resident population, expectation of permanence, sovereignty, the recognition of other states, and territory” (White 2004 p66.).
To be successful, for its laws and regulations to be respected and abided by, a state needs to be perceived by the nation it serves as permanent and authoritative. A state projects the idea that this is the case within all its territory (or territories in the case of colonialism), right up to its borders. This idea of an autonomous land is very important for the progression to a nation-state, an area of territory where nation and state work harmoniously. This is referred to as the phase of institutionalisation where state authority, its Institutions and borders, are accepted as a normal part of every day life, unquestioned and unchallenged.
If these are ideologies of state, then maps are the external graphic representation of them, covertly confirming the idea of fixity to whoever views them. The lines look solid, fixed and reliable. Satellite imagery means that maps are more accurate now than ever before. We have the feeling that the sophistication of the technology used in modern map making represents the landscape truthfully. This is correct, but to view maps as merely an aid to navigation in an unfamiliar landscape is to miss the underlying message and the history of cartography. The development of cartography itself was to serve as a method of laying claim to conquered and discovered lands, as the globe was colonised by early European explorers. From its inception, cartography was a highly political tool. Maps are still used to assert and re-state territorial claims, and to cement them.
States wish for their boundaries as represented on maps, to become “institutionalised” within the body of their population and the populations of the surrounding countries, to be accepted as the norm, unquestioned. This acceptance leads to stability. For instance this was the situation for quite some time in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, as it still is in many relatively stable countries.
Nation
A nation is a “territorially-based community of human beings sharing a distinct variant of modern culture, bound together by a strong sentiment of unity and solidarity, marked by a clear historically-rooted consciousness of national identity, and possessing, or striving to possess, a genuine political self-government”. (Symonolewicz,1985)
If a country progresses beyond the stage of “institutionalisation” where its nation and state are aligned and have shared aspirations for their territory, the country is said to be a nation-state. This idealised situation would be almost imposable for a country to attain, as it would require “ethical, racial, linguistic and cultural homogeneity”(Horseman an Marshall,1995, from Donnan,1999). The countries of Western Europe have developed a significant level of homogeneity since World War II to be considered nation states.
There is a classic understanding that borders are defined and delivered from the highest level of state government from the core of any particular country. Decided politically, legally ratified, and marked boldly on maps of every scale, these borders attempt to “Forge and define the bounds of national culture” (Wilson/Donnan 1998). As a result of this, borderlands are often perceived to be marginal to the state, at the furthest points of its territories. This is an attitude often reinforced by media coverage of borderlands, where they are represented as intimidating and dangerous, where familiar meets “other”.
In short, states are political phenomena with the following attributes: government, organised economy, circulatory transport systems and communication systems, permanent resident population, expectation of permanence, sovereignty, the recognition of other states, and territory” (White 2004 p66.).
To be successful, for its laws and regulations to be respected and abided by, a state needs to be perceived by the nation it serves as permanent and authoritative. A state projects the idea that this is the case within all its territory (or territories in the case of colonialism), right up to its borders. This idea of an autonomous land is very important for the progression to a nation-state, an area of territory where nation and state work harmoniously. This is referred to as the phase of institutionalisation where state authority, its Institutions and borders, are accepted as a normal part of every day life, unquestioned and unchallenged.
If these are ideologies of state, then maps are the external graphic representation of them, covertly confirming the idea of fixity to whoever views them. The lines look solid, fixed and reliable. Satellite imagery means that maps are more accurate now than ever before. We have the feeling that the sophistication of the technology used in modern map making represents the landscape truthfully. This is correct, but to view maps as merely an aid to navigation in an unfamiliar landscape is to miss the underlying message and the history of cartography. The development of cartography itself was to serve as a method of laying claim to conquered and discovered lands, as the globe was colonised by early European explorers. From its inception, cartography was a highly political tool. Maps are still used to assert and re-state territorial claims, and to cement them.
States wish for their boundaries as represented on maps, to become “institutionalised” within the body of their population and the populations of the surrounding countries, to be accepted as the norm, unquestioned. This acceptance leads to stability. For instance this was the situation for quite some time in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, as it still is in many relatively stable countries.
Nation
A nation is a “territorially-based community of human beings sharing a distinct variant of modern culture, bound together by a strong sentiment of unity and solidarity, marked by a clear historically-rooted consciousness of national identity, and possessing, or striving to possess, a genuine political self-government”. (Symonolewicz,1985)
If a country progresses beyond the stage of “institutionalisation” where its nation and state are aligned and have shared aspirations for their territory, the country is said to be a nation-state. This idealised situation would be almost imposable for a country to attain, as it would require “ethical, racial, linguistic and cultural homogeneity”(Horseman an Marshall,1995, from Donnan,1999). The countries of Western Europe have developed a significant level of homogeneity since World War II to be considered nation states.
posted by Phsteve at 4:26 PM
<< Home