Within the modern forms of the political and/or geographical structures
of states, a wide range of factors has been modified and altered comparing to
what was the case in the previous historical eras in human societies and
geopolitical basis of states.
A state is defined
by the Advanced English Dictionary as the body that is organized politically
under a single government, as the group of people comprising the government, or
as the territory that is occupied by a nation.
From the above
mentioned definitions, it is evident that a state is, basically, composed of
elements such as territory and people. People themselves are either one single
group of individuals (which includes also families) or a composition of a
variety of groups. Each group can be considered one community.
Community
The term ‘community’ has not been identified
clearly as other terms have been. The reason of that is the vast elements that
should interact in order to create a single entity that can be considered and
accepted as a community.
According
to Macvler, a community is “any area of common life, village, or town, or
district, or country, or even wider area.” He then explains that a community is
“a focus of social life, the common living of social beings” (23-24).
According
to Macvler’s understanding, a community is based solely on geographical
parameters, “village, town, or district, or country”. But this is contested by
other authors and researchers in the field. Jonassen and Land explain that a
community must share far more elements than just location; “a community has a
significant history, a common cultural and historical heritage. This heritage
includes the shared goals, belief systems and collective stories that capture
canonical practice,” and all these elements form what can be considered as a
common knowledge base (36).
Wood
even states that there are specific factors that should be shared for a
community to be taken as such; “a sense of common purpose..., an assuming of
mutual responsibility, acknowledgement of interconnectedness, mutual respect
for individual difference, mutual commitment to the well-being of each other,
and commitment by the members to the integrity and well-being of the
group" (7).
According
to Bruhn, the characteristics that identify the concept of community are three
“mutually agreed upon as a minimum, namely locale, common ties, and social
interaction” (249-250).
As
can be seen, a community has been always seen as a group of people who have the
same, or similar, background, culture, goals, belief systems, and way of life.
In
the modern state, the term ‘community’ usually refers to smaller centres that
are far from the heavily populated areas, or to various minorities within a
society; a community can be based on a different religion from the main-stream
religion within the state, can be a group of people with origins that are of a
different political or geographical state than the one where they presently
reside, or can be simply a group of people within a specific economic,
cultural, or financial sphere of interest.
Spatiality of the state
Each
state is defined through the existence of many factors; such as political
borders, geographical location, and history.
Lefebvre
explains that the state has three distinct types of space: The first is
national territory, which is the physical area that the state occupies and
modifies through the creation of roads and other transportation routes, through
the creation of financial institutions and connections, and through other
means. All what is mentioned, according to the author, “results in a shapeless
mixture, in chaos, despite the administrative order and spatial logistics of
the state”. The second type is the social space, which is a kind of a man-made
structure of institutions and regulations working according to certain values
that are communicated through language. The author explains that the first type
is natural while the second is artificial. The third type is the mental space,
which “includes the representations of the state that people construct”
(Brenner, et al. 85-86).
Community within the Spatiality of the
contemporary state
Some
contend that the community and the state are one thing; the main idea to
clarify here is that the state is not the community; a certain community can
make part of a state, but it does not, in any case, represent it or implement
its views, regulations and ideas on the state as a whole.
An
example of this can be found in what concerns certain economic or production
communities; these are usually maintained under the supervision and the control
of state laws and regulations. According to Lefebvre, “the aim of [the state
space] is to make [the interests of various economic communities] appear
homogeneous... [and this] allows the state to introduce its presence, control,
and surveillance in the most isolated corners” (Brenner, et al. 85-86).
It
should also be noted that modern states attempted, to a certain level of
success, to open the door for participation in what concerns governance in
rural areas (which are considered as independent communities); and this was the
spark for constructive results regarding the spaces and the periods in relation
with democracy, for instance. “Opportunities for participation may be
influenced by the stability of the community power structure, the level of
competition – or lack of it – and the personal skills and attributes of the
individual. Barriers include time, family commitments, employment situation, expense,
perceptions about the nature of the leadership,” and more (Woods et al. 2).
