Territoriality versus Functionality

The task of this chapter is to identify the elements of the structuring of the space of political systems, with specific reference to the territorial dimension. Throughout this volume these elements – in particular the dualism between “territoriality” and “functionality” – will be used to interpret empirical evidence. The best-known expression of the two-dimensionality of the space of a political system as composed of a territorial and a functional dimension is Max Weber's definition of a politischer Verband: “We say of a group of domination that it is a political group [politischer Verband] insofar as its existence and the validity of the norms are assured in a permanent way within a territory [Gebiet]. What characterises the political group … is the fact that it claims the domination of its administrative leadership and of its norms upon a territory” (Weber 1978: Part 1, Chapter 1, 17.1).

For Weber, territorial and functional aspects are at the basis of fundamental principles of social organization and reflect the image societies have of themselves. Political domination can follow either territorial criteria (laws in the modern nation-states are spatially bounded) or functional ones (the feudal hierarchical relationship). However, the distinction between territoriality and functionality can be fruitfully applied to many other aspects to understand the structuring of the space of political systems: Membership can be defined with respect to both social and territorial boundaries; representation channels can be organized in relation to territorial or functional criteria (estates, corporations); cleavages can be ordered in a two-dimensional space composed of functional and territorial dimensions.