Skip to main content

“Ecologic” Border and Deterritorialisation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Deterritorialised Identity and Transborder Movement in South Asia
  • 387 Accesses

Abstract

The border represents the transitional zone of demarcation where places and nations begin and end. Prominence of the eternal truth coexists with the fuzziness of cultures and nature. Border studies have not taken into account the ecological content of the border that enables the fuzziness to give its content. This chapter attempts to reframe the idea of border by bringing in the ecological dimension and critiques both the Westphalian Border perspective and Empire Logic of Border. The border formation is a complex process that does not always involve sovereign. People themselves construct boundaries around them and within selves. In this connection, border is conceptualised as “ecologic” border (bhitamati in vernacular language) as a lived, rather than a constructed place dominated by power relations, that involves a complex interaction of social and environmental milieu of material and cultural life. Examining the lived experiences of the Munda tribe of Kalinganagar, the chapter further argues that border is not always a political artifice constructed to segregate, classify and control people, rather it is a social fact of life embedded within selves and collective memory of a community. The “memorate knowledge” – an assortment of social and symbolic goods – associated with the ecologic border embeds affective memories to place and the environment surrounding it. Increasing industrialisation after the initialisation of the process of globalisation has structurally ruptured the organic link of self with environment by displacing the community from its everyday borderlands. The tribes got deterritorialised from the embedded place, at times through voluntary movement and other times by forceful eviction, into a new “culturescape” where the erstwhile labouring population became part of the footloose labour and of the “lower class sector” of the new political economy evolving here.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Though there is a conceptual difference between border and boundary, I am using border and boundary synonymously here.

  2. 2.

    TT stands for thing and thing, TH stands for thing and human and HT is human and thing dependent relationship.

  3. 3.

    Interview at Chandia on 22 June 2008.

  4. 4.

    The tribes do not have a concept of a king. They call their ruler as Budha Raja meaning a king who is old, is wise and has knowledge about the nature.

  5. 5.

    Interview at Hatimunda on 16 June 2008.

  6. 6.

    Interview at Chandia on 12 June 2008.

Bibliography

  • Agnew, J. (1994, Spring). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, J. (1987). Place and politics: the geographical mediatioin of state and society. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, J. (2008). Borders on the mind: Re-framing border thinking. Ethics & Global Politics, 1(4), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, A. (2003). Sovereignty without territoriality: Notes for a postnational geography. In S. M. Low & D. Lawrence-zuniga (Eds.), The anthropology of space and place: Locating culture (pp. 337–349). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, F. (2000). Boundaries and connections. In A. P. Cohen (Ed.), Signifying identities. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basso, K. H. (Ed.). (1996). Wisdom sits in places: Landscape and language among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brighenti, A. (2007). On territory as relationship and law as territory. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 21(2) pp. 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brighenti, A. (2010). Lines, barred lines: Movement, territory and the law. International Journal of Law in Context, 6(3), 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J. A., (2010). Biophilia, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229090791. Accessed on 13-5-2018, 4.30 p.m.

  • Chakravarti, A., & Dhar, A. (2009). Dislocation and resettlement in development: From third world to the world of the third. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronon, W. (2003). Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, H. (2012). Permeabilities, ecology and geopolitical boundaries. In T. M. Wilson & H. Donan (Eds.), A companion to border studies (pp. 371–386). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elden, S. (2010). Land, territory and terrain. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 799–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elden, S. (2013). The significance of territory. Geographica Helvetica, 68, 65–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fall, J. J. (2011). Natural resources and transnational governance. In D. Wastl-Walter (Ed.), The Ashgate research companion to border studies (pp. 628–641). Farham/Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, S. L. A. (2011). One decade of transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa. In D. Wastl-Walter (Ed.), The Ashgate research companion to border studies (pp. 643–663). Farham and Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to the visual perception. Madison: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottmann, J. (1973). The significance of territory. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2003). Open spaces and dwelling places: Being at home on hill farms in the Scottish borders. In S. M. Low & D. Lawrence-zuniga (Eds.), The anthropology of space and place: Locating culture (pp. 224–244). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. (2012). A sense of border. In T. M. Wilson & H. Donnan (Eds.), A companion to border studies (pp. 573–592). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, R. (2014). Erich Fromm’s ecological messianism: The first biophilia hypothesis as humanistic social theory. Humanity & Society, 38(2), 182–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1997). Culture, power, place: Exploration in critical anthropology. Durham/London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1993). Building, dwelling, thinking. http://designtheory.fiu.edu/readings/heidegger_bdt.pdf.

  • Hodder, I. (2012). Entanglement: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. B. (1987). The word itself. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape, 13 https://sfaiph304.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/jbjackson_vernacular.pdf. Accessed on 21.11.2017.

  • Jones, R., & Johnson, K. (2014). Placing border in everyday life. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan, P. (1999). The emergent land: Nature and ecology in native American expressive forms, 83–92 http://www.ucd.ie/pages/99/articles/kirwan.pdf and http://research.gold.ac.uk/13144/

  • Lucas, C. P. (1914). Man as a geographical agency. The Geographical Journal, 44(5), 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, A. (2010) Roots, belonging and place. www.christian-ecology.org.uk. Accessed on 7.3.2018.

  • Milton, K. (2002). Loving nature: Towards an ecology of emotion. London/New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty, B. (2016). Recounting double exception in Kalinganagar. International Journal for Migration and Border Studies, 2(2), 149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. (2003). On borders and power: A theoretical framework. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 18(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. (2003a). Boundary. In J. A. K. Mitchell & G. Toal (Eds.), A companion to political geography. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, space and architecture. New York/Washington, DC: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasi, A. (1998). Boundaries as social processes: Territoriality in the world of flows. Geopolitics, 3(1), 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, C., Cooper, A., & Rumford, P. C. (2014). The vernacularization of borders. In R. Jones & C. Johnson (Eds.), Placing the border in everyday life (pp. 15–32). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Relhp, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruby, T. (2006). Who am I and where do I belong? Sites of struggle in crafting and negotiating female Muslim identities in Canada. In W. Schissel (Ed.), Geographies of self, place and space: home/bodies. Canada: University of Calgary Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sack, R. D. (1986). Territoriality: Theory and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, P. (1989). Boundaries: The making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassen, S. (2013). When territory deborders territoriality. Territory, Politics and Governance, 1(1), 21–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, C. J. (1960). On past and present American culture. In W. M. Denevan & K. Mathewson (Eds.), Carl Saurer on culture and landscape: Reading and commentaries, (2009) (pp. 390–391). Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, C. (2011). The delimitation of maritime boundaries: An incomplete mosaic. In D. Wastl-Walter (Ed.), The Ashgate research companion to border studies (pp. 665–681). Farham/Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silko, L. M. (1986 Autumn). Landscape, history, and the Pueblo imagination. Antaeus, 57, 882–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, C. (2015). On Borders’ multiplicity: A perspective from assemblage theory. Working paper, EUBORDERSCAPES, European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun-young, R. (2003). Boundary and sense of place in traditional Korean dwelling. Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies, 3(2), 62–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagliacozzo, E. (2015). Jagged landscapes: Conceptualising borders and boundaries in the history of human societies. Journal of Borderland Studies, 31(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, C., & Cameron-Daum, K. (2017). The anthropology of landscape: Materiality, embodiment, contestation and emotion. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1mtz542.7

  • Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Space and place: Perspective on experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Houtum, H. (2011). The mask of the border. In D. Wastl-Walter (Ed.), The Ashgate research companion to border studies (pp. 49–61). Farham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. J. (1988). The domestication of human species. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, J. M. (2000). Home: Territory and identity. Cultural Studies, 14(2), 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, J. (2007). Landscape. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhurzhenko, T. (2011). Border and memory. In D. WAstl-Walter (Ed.), Companion to border studies (pp. 63–83). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mohanty, B. (2019). “Ecologic” Border and Deterritorialisation. In: Uddin, N., Chowdhory, N. (eds) Deterritorialised Identity and Transborder Movement in South Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2778-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2778-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2777-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2778-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics