220 Luke Munn Sand, Silica, Silicon: Singapore’s Triple Territories Territory has traditionally been understood as a bounded space that is claimed by a government. Storey (2012, 1), for instance, begins his ex- ploration of territory by defning it as “a portion of geographic space that is claimed or occupied.” Cowen and Gilbert (2008, 16) frame it as “land that has been identifed and claimed by a person or people.” Perhaps the foremost thinker on territory is Stuart Elden, with his comprehensive genealogy of the concept in Te Birth of Territory. Elden initially appears to ofer an intriguing alternative to these defnitions, arguing that ter- ritory is a “political technology,” a bundle of diverse political techniques deployed by the state to enact, maintain, and contest its spaces of gov- ernance. Tis framing is promising in that it starts to conceive territory as a mode of operating in or through various spaces to establish order and assert control. And yet Elden (2013, 432) seems to conclude toward the end of his study that these techniques are “techniques for measuring land and controlling terrain.” Territory reverts once more to a bounded space, only this time with high-resolution edges and computational tools. In these conventional framings, territory retains strong links to the soil and the state. Such framings fail to adequately grasp both the modes and means of contemporary territoriality. In terms of modes, rather than solely the bordered space of jurisdictional control, we witness a proliferation of diferent forms of territory. Over the last decade, scholarly work has explored globalization and territory (Sassen 2009), networks and terri- tory (Painter 2010), logistical territories (Rossiter 2017b; Neilson et al. 2018), and territories beyond terra (Peters et al. 2018). Each of these con- tributions, in their own way, tries to open back up the taken-for-granted