Liminality Articulations in Territorial Development: A Research On Biopolitics
Author: Artan Kacani
Affiliation: Polis University
Liminality has two main definitions. The first definition is related to the position between consciousness and the supraliminal on the one hand, and un-consciousness and the subliminal on the other. The second definition is related to the dimensions in-between. Starting from this last definition, the paper investigates the structural articulations of the dimensions in-between and its similarities with territorial development. Indeed, territorial development happens with a level of human consciousness, and it includes all the dimensions in-between the liminality: time, space and subjects in it; from individuals, groups, society, and state. The paper's aim is to investigate on a probabilistic way the articulations of liminality dimensions, and consequently the results of the territorial development and its similarities with the property rights theories. The limits of the research are defined by the liminality dimensions, number of articulations, and the level of consciousness. The higher the number of articulations is, the higher would the consciousness of territorial development be. Fewer articulations there are, the more authoritarian would territorial development be. The probabilistic results with two articulations give 16 models of interactions. Each model is correlated to property rights theories and various definitions of biopolitics. The research represents a first attempt to catalogue forms of territorial sovereignty, values, land, and models. Researchers are invited to reflect and contribute to the exploration of a broader number of articulations in order to produce new models of territorial development.
Agamben, G. (2004). Stato di eccezione. Homo sacer, II, I,. Torino: Bollati Borighieri.
Agamber, G. (1990). La communita' che viene. Torino: Giulio Einaudi editor.
Alexande, G., & Peñalver, E. (2012). Utilitarian Property Theories. Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, Z. (2001). Community. Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Byrd, S., & Hruschka, J. (2010). Kant's Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-1976. Picador; First edition.
Habitat III. (2016). Issue papers. Informal Settlements. (p. 9). Quito: United Nations.
Hallebeek, J. (1987). Thomas Aquinas' theory of property. Irish Jurist. New series, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 99-111.
Harvey, D. (2013). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Verso; 1 edition.
Hudson, B. M. (1979). Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. APA Journal.
Jacobs, J. (1992). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage; Reissue edition.
Kramer, M. (2004). John Locke and the Origins of Private Property. Cambridge University Press.
Mill, J. S. (2017). Utilitarianism. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Negri, A., & Hardt, M. (2000). Empire. New York: Harvard University Press.
Pełczyński, Z. (1984). The State and Civil Society: Studies in Hegel's Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, C. (2014). Dictatorship. From the origin of the modern concept of sovereignty to proletarian class struggle. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Simon, H. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative. New York: Macmillan Inc.
Tavani, H. T. (2005). Locke, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Information Commons. Ethics and Information Technology, 87.
Thomassen, B. (2009). Anthropology and social theory: Renewing dialogue. European Journal of Social Theory, Volume: 16 issue: 2, page(s): 188- 207.
Virilio, P. (1991). Lost Dimension. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wolin, R. (1990). Carl Schmitt, Political Existentialism, and the Total State. Theory and Society, Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 389-416.