This is what I'm wrestling with right now:
Just what is the relationship between "the state" and "space"? Now, at first blush, that question is one of those big continental theory questions that is going to involve crap like subjectivity and probably a "dialectic."
But, that's not quite where I want to go. Rather, my focus is much more pedestrian, and limited to the historical relationship between the United States national government and subnational actors (states and cities, primarily). In that light, what we really have is a question of federalism.
Interestinly enough, there is very little in the Constitution that gives the national government control over territory. Obviously, a national government has certain power over its borders, but (speaking formally now), the U.S. national government was not granted a great deal of power over its own land at its inception. [I'm a bit fuzzier about what was actually happening on the ground - think the Louisiana Purchase. While not exactly an example of state regulation, such an act does not portray a state that is "weak" when it comes to space.]
Increasingly, however, the national government seems to be exerting more and more of itself in space. Naturally, my favorite example is the interstate. But, there were a whole *slew* of Depression era public works projects that fit the bill, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority project. Further, post-WWII projects such as urban renewal or the Model Cities program also seem to point to a state that is much more "spatially oriented."
The expansion of American bureacracy and state power is *not* a new story by any means. Stephen Skowronek, and other scholars of American political development, have been well aware of that. My specific question is how the national government has expanded its control over *space,* how these efforts reduce local/state powers, and the long-term impacts of these projects (did they ruin cities? produce crime? or what?).
I have a feel that international relations types might have more to say the relationship between the state and its own territory. Legal scholars might as well. The control over territory is an important part of sovereignty after all. But I'm less concerned, I guess, with those types of "official" definitions. I'm more interested in how a *liberal* and *federated* state like the US has dealt with the spatial problem, and how its changed over time. In so doing, I'm trying to shed light both on the interstate itself and a broader question of politics and space.
But, this just gets me back to the beginning of my problem again... Just how much control did the early American government HAVE over space? And how much control does it have now? That latter story is more complicated than it seems, since many state efforts involve cooperate between local and national levels. So, who really holds the reins in those examples?
I feel like I have a big theoretical mess and I don't even know where to start disentangling it yet.
********************************************************************************************************************
My Weekly Artist Chart
My Weekly Track Chart
My Overall Artist Chart
My Overall Track Chart
Just what is the relationship between "the state" and "space"? Now, at first blush, that question is one of those big continental theory questions that is going to involve crap like subjectivity and probably a "dialectic."
But, that's not quite where I want to go. Rather, my focus is much more pedestrian, and limited to the historical relationship between the United States national government and subnational actors (states and cities, primarily). In that light, what we really have is a question of federalism.
Interestinly enough, there is very little in the Constitution that gives the national government control over territory. Obviously, a national government has certain power over its borders, but (speaking formally now), the U.S. national government was not granted a great deal of power over its own land at its inception. [I'm a bit fuzzier about what was actually happening on the ground - think the Louisiana Purchase. While not exactly an example of state regulation, such an act does not portray a state that is "weak" when it comes to space.]
Increasingly, however, the national government seems to be exerting more and more of itself in space. Naturally, my favorite example is the interstate. But, there were a whole *slew* of Depression era public works projects that fit the bill, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority project. Further, post-WWII projects such as urban renewal or the Model Cities program also seem to point to a state that is much more "spatially oriented."
The expansion of American bureacracy and state power is *not* a new story by any means. Stephen Skowronek, and other scholars of American political development, have been well aware of that. My specific question is how the national government has expanded its control over *space,* how these efforts reduce local/state powers, and the long-term impacts of these projects (did they ruin cities? produce crime? or what?).
I have a feel that international relations types might have more to say the relationship between the state and its own territory. Legal scholars might as well. The control over territory is an important part of sovereignty after all. But I'm less concerned, I guess, with those types of "official" definitions. I'm more interested in how a *liberal* and *federated* state like the US has dealt with the spatial problem, and how its changed over time. In so doing, I'm trying to shed light both on the interstate itself and a broader question of politics and space.
But, this just gets me back to the beginning of my problem again... Just how much control did the early American government HAVE over space? And how much control does it have now? That latter story is more complicated than it seems, since many state efforts involve cooperate between local and national levels. So, who really holds the reins in those examples?
I feel like I have a big theoretical mess and I don't even know where to start disentangling it yet.
********************************************************************************************************************
My Weekly Artist Chart
My Weekly Track Chart
My Overall Artist Chart
My Overall Track Chart
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
Anywho, I can't sight-read. If I had a simple piece of music in front of me, I could eventually figure it out, but otherwise I try to come up with my own shorthand if things need to be written down. It also depends on what instrument it is. If it's a keyboard progression, I need to write it; if it's a guitar riff, I'll usually be able to just remember it.
On the plus side, I've got recording capabilities here both on computers and keyboards. So, if things start getting complex enough, I'll be taking the time to get a version down to (digital) memory. That's also very convenient for collaborators---one can use memory cards from keyboards or make mp3s.
edit: A few years ago, though, it was all about the boombox.
[Edited on Feb 06, 2006 8:06PM]