Societies have a sense of spatial belonging

The argument

"Home", as a metaphorical and physical construct, is an integral part of a society, and the argument builds from that double meaning. A home is a place on a map, but it is also a set of attachments — the sense that this is where one belongs and these are the people one belongs among. Members of society share a common territorial home and an affinity for those within that locality, and it is the pairing of the two that does the work: territory alone would make a society a mere population, and affinity alone would make it a network rather than a society. The treatment of newcomers is offered as evidence that the territorial bond is real rather than incidental. This is why immigrants to new societies have to go through a period of assimilation, during which they are often marginalized — they are physically present in the territory but are not yet held to share in its construct of home. As their affinity for the new territory grows, so does their integration, and eventually they become a fully assimilated member of that society with a shared construct of "home". If belonging were purely legal or economic, that interval would not exist at all; the fact that it does suggests membership is granted by a shared sense of place rather than by residence alone. From this the conclusion follows directly: a society is defined by its geospatial home, and distinct from societies that occupy another home. What separates one society from another, on this account, is not language, government or custom in the first instance but the territory each takes as its own — the boundary of the "home" its members recognise, and the point beyond which their affinity for one another stops.

Context

Societies are connected with a sense of spatial belonging. It is impossible to separate the society from the territory or the social from the territory.

Premises

Counter-arguments

If society is dependent on the notion of a shared territory, the process of globalization would be synonymous with erosion of the society. As globalization creates more porous borders and creates a more mobile workforce, melting the hard borders that divide nations, it would tear societies apart. The fact that the concept of a society in today’s world remains consistent and societies remain intact suggests that either there has been an uncoupling of territory from society, or that it was never an integral part of a society to begin with.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Globalization is creating a more mobile workforce with weaker ties to their "home". But it is not damaging societies. Therefore, a specific territory is not an integral part of a society's development or function.

Framing

Society's geospatial location is integral for its function and formation. Without a "home" there can be no society.