116 Commentaries ISSN 0004-0894 © The Authors. Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007 The possibilities of post-territorial political community David Chandler Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, London W1T 3UW Email: D.Chandler@Westminster.ac.uk Introduction This paper argues that the lack of purchase of tradi- tional territorial constructions of political community does not necessarily indicate the emergence of new post-territorial forms of political belonging. Rather, the claims made for new ‘immanent’ or ‘emerging’ forms of post-territorial political community reflect the highly individuated forms of political activity which have accompanied the break-down of domestic social and political links. This breakdown of territorial forms of belonging has facilitated the development of a variety of unmediated forms of expression of individual claims, tending to privilege the individual over any communal collectivity. This discussion paper concludes by suggesting what the possibilities of a reconstitution of political community might imply. The radical rejection of territorial political communities The immanence of a post-territorial political com- munity is often posed as a radical or critical alterna- tive to the dominant ways of being political today (for example, Appadurai 1996; Kuehls 1996; O’Tuathail 1996; Shapiro and Alker 1996). Territorial state-based politics is held to institutionalize the structuring of grand narratives of ‘the nation’ and to universalize particularist and narrow interests on the basis of the division of those ‘inside’ and those ‘outside’ the territorial boundaries (for example, Ashley 1988; Connolly 1991; Walker 1993; Falk 1995; Campbell 1998; Linklater 1998). Instead of politics being mediated through the divisive institutions of territorial communities, it is argued that the individual can engage directly in the ‘politics of the human’, in ‘global civil society’ or in the struggle against ‘power’ or ‘Empire’ (for example, Deudney 1993; Walker 1994; Baker 2002; Hardt and Negri 2001; Kaldor 2003; Keane 2003; Shaw 2000). Let us consider two different, and in diverse ways, key radical or alternative political sets of actors – radical anti-globalization activists and radical Muslim activism in the form of Al Qaeda. In setting out this brief analysis, three key traits of post-territorial politics will be highlighted: those of non-instrumentality, i.e. the means are self-justifying and no longer attached to instrumental ends: the privileging of activity/ emotion over theory/intellect, i.e. there is little emphasis on argument/ideas; and the privileging of difference over communality, i.e. highlighting diverse identities rather than shared interests. It will be suggested that these three traits, essential to post- territorial political activism, privilege the individual over any social collectivity and operate to undermine the possibility of the emergence of post-territorial political community. Radical activism For radical activists – exemplified in the anti- Globalization/Capitalism/ War social protests – it would appear that there has been a profound shift away from the politics of parties and collective movements to a much more atomized and individuated form of protest. This was highlighted in the February 2003 anti-Iraq war protest demonstrations which attracted more people than any previous political protests, but which markedly did not produce an anti-war ‘movement’. There was no attempt to win people engaged to a shared position; people expressed dis- parate and highly personal protests of disengagement, such as the key slogan of ‘Not in My Name’. Being ‘anti-war’ is today an expression of personal ethics rather than of political engagement and does not indicate that the individual concerned is engaged in a campaign of social change or is interested in either understanding or debating the causes of war (capitalism, human nature, etc.). These forms of practical and intellectual engagement with a political