This reading is the introductory chapter of David Delaney's book "Territory: a short introduction" (Blackwell, 2005).
Some initial questions:
Delaney writes that the dominant experience and understanding of territory is "naturalized", meaning that we more-often-than-not assume that it is a fundamental and essential component of how humans organize. While he doesn't deny that this may be true, he argues that we cannot take any form of territoriality for granted as immanent. As he puts it: "territory commonly works precisely through the tendency to take power and meaning and their relationship to be simply self-evident and rather non-problematic". Meaning, if we assume a given territory as it currently works, we are limited in how we can challenge, or even just understand, it.
Just think about the sit ins of the civil rights movement in the USA during the 1960s - it took a fundamental and complex view of territorial boundaries in order to know what lines needed crossing.
Delaney proposes 4 steps that are necessary for a more rigorous examination of territory: seeing, seeing around, seeing through and seeing past.
What are examples that have occurred in your own life experience where you have been confronted with territorial boundaries in such a way that your relationship to those boundaries became "denaturalized" or more conspicuous? i.e. Have there been moments in your life where the normally self-evident nature of territory was disrupted?

In regards to the notion of territorial boundaries, I found my notions of space, division, and privacy challenged the most when I first came to college. In my freshman dorm I had to share an enclosed space with another person. The easiest way to define your space was to split the room in two, and consequently one side of the room became mine and the other was the property of my roommate. However, there existed no concrete line in the middle of the room sectioning off our spaces, yet this became a conceptually understood notion. It is interesting how our basic instincts tell us that this is the way it should be, without having to state this knowledge. I sometimes found it unnerving when I would see my roommate’s things slowly easing over and crossing my imaginary territorial boundary. If a shoe, a book, or a backpack happened to fall over into my space it became painfully obvious, to the point where it almost felt necessary to move her things back to her side. While this is something that in all likelihood shouldn’t have bothered me, I felt some sort of entitlement to my section of our small living arrangement. This became even more challenging when it came to dividing up our space in the fridge or storage area. Now there was no easy or clear way to dictate our territories, and the cards or in my case the condiments, fell where they may.
Another applicable scenario that pertains to territories occurs when I am in a public sphere like walking to the quad or shopping in the grocery store. I again unconsciously assign the immediate area surrounding me as my “personal space”. If someone steps too close to me, or hits my purse, or even tries to grab an item that is directly in front of me this becomes unnerving. It’s as if my body is a kind of territory, and even though I am in a public place, I feel as though there should be some kind of understood by laws that restrict someone from obstructing my space without permission. In retrospect this seems fickle, selfish, and contrary to my otherwise consistent beliefs about public domain and free will but this idea of territory seems to follow us around, even to the parking lot or classroom. For example, in most of my smaller classes I have a tendency to sit in the same desk or at least the same spot of the room, and when someone is sitting in my “alleged” seat it kind of irks me. Maybe it is an inherit natural tendency to claim space or our developed western notion of individual entitlement, but after taking a closer look at territorial boundaries, these divisions or enclosures seem quite trivial.

In his assessment of how people view territory, Delaney notes that even the use of territory as a noun reinforces the commonly held view of a territory as a thing. Seen this way, it is taken at face value and clearly defined. However, the notion of territory is very complex and deserves further examination into why territories are the way they are and how they can be changed. The example Ryan mentioned about the sit ins of the 1960's, is perfect to demonstrate the different ways of seeing. Territory can be viewed horizontally and vertically. To view the circumstances horizontally during the 1960's, one would see the “mosaic of like spaces” in the South that would not serve black customers, and also the mosaic of places that would. There is no social or political information to help better understand the make-up of these territories. To look at the situation vertically would be to see the diners that would not serve blacks as being part of a larger system of power. These diners have their own rules, but are part of a state with its own laws, that is part of a region with its own history and social customs, that is within a country with the strongest power of any of them. The people who held the sit ins saw the diners in this continuum of power, and realized that the diner’s rules did not over power the US Constitution. Territory as a horizontal thing is unchangeable, but to see it as a vertical social system of power allows room for assessment and change.

This is probably the most ridiculous example, but here goes:
One moment in which a territory has been “denaturalized”, which I’m sure most women can relate to, is waiting in line for the bathroom. When there are one person bathrooms for both men and women, there will be a long line of women waiting for their bathroom and the men’s bathroom will be completely empty. Because the sign denotes which gender goes in which bathroom, very few people will venture to the opposite genders. I can understand this in the case that there are multiple toilets, but when you’re all alone and there’s a lock on the door, it doesn’t matter much what the sign says. However, from early childhood we are trained to know that the bald person with the dress means ladies bathroom, and the bald person with pants means mens room. And in most cases, unquestioningly, we wait for the one with our respective sign. It took a desperate situation for me to evaluate the cultural value of dividing the bathrooms into separate gender territories. Now, when I have to laugh when I see women waiting in line and glancing over at the men’s bathroom, but immobilized by the social organization.

Boundaries and territories are concepts that I often ponder on and try to challenge. The reading added some perspective to the ongoing sort of sub-conscious conversation that takes place in my head. It's interesting to me to think about territories not just as the physical manifestation of the word but also cultural patterns or expectations between people. Oftentimes when discussing relationships we'll speak of boundaries; setting boundaries to protect yourself and restore peace. These aren't physical barriers denoting a territory, but they are metaphorical boundaries that explain a mutually understood territory of ways of being.
The history of the word territory revealed much about the way the words has become understood. "Territory is land occupied by violence." That's not exactly the first definition that comes to mind. But it has become absolutely true in this modern world. The examples given, mostly colonial acts, such as the Iraq war, the partitioning of this land mass by the great powers of Europe, and that continual partitioning of land with the Mexican War and the "alotting" of land to individual tribe members to Native Americans were all appreciated and helpful in understanding how Modernism and territory sort of go hand in hand. Not only modernism, but also racism against native peoples or unindustrialized people has a direct connection to territorialization.

There have been moments in my life when I've been directly confronted with a denaturalized territory. The most prevalent moments that come to mind are when I'm on foot. The urban planning and developing of this country has very purposefully made walking a difficult means for transportation. As idiotic as it seems, I think very skillfully and intentionally developers realized somewhere along the line that this individualistic/capitalist state was for those with a motor only. So in order to do what us modernized capitalist individuals do best (consume) we must get in our car and drive to these consuming havens, such as what exists on the Northwest part of this community. There have been times when I one either had some time on my hands to do so, or two desperately needed something and was without a vehicle and too new to town to understand how the bus routes worked. So I've actually tried to walk around the Northwestern part of town trying to get toilet paper or some sort of supply for an art class. It is always a huge struggle and pain in the butt and usually a near death situation. There are next to no cross walks. There are expansive lots of asphalt between every destination and between these lots are very deep and large ditches, because all of the soil that usually would soak up rain and runoff is covered with concrete structures or asphalt. The streets that one must cross are 6, 7, sometimes 8 lanes wide. These sorts of places are no phenomena to us modern Americans that have experienced suburbanization. There are replicas of these sites scattered plentifully across the states. Usually when I'm on foot I feel free and alive and more connected to my community and neighbors. Developments such as these deny us of that and create detached angry ego-maniac capitalists. I guess that's the point. The end.

I am often hung up on weather or not borders and territory are important, or just causing more disaster. It seems within an already territorialized world it is important that we create more territories within this in order to feel connected to something. Having a cultural identity within these borders seems most important in order to have a sense of belonging in the world. As Delaney says, "Territorial configurations are not simply cultural artifacts. They are political achievments," Thus many of the borders that have been reated are configured in light of a political acheivment, putting less importance on an identity, or a way of living, farming, nourishment etc.
after reading this i am reminded of genderized territory: whenever i have to use the bathroom and i am in a pubic building, i must decide on a gender before entereing the mens or womens door. Also if one is not inclined to choose the most likely 2 choses presented, then this becomes a "territory of exclusions"

In Delaney’s article Defining Territories the author reorganizes territory as a socially produced site of confluence for political and cultural issues. Delaney breaks down a process for readers to organize site in this way by laying out a four-stage process. This process involves: seeing, seeing around, seeing through, and seeing past.
Borders or the concept of territorial integrity is central to the author’s case for complicating the way that territories are viewed. Creating field of exclusion that defines a geopolitical is at the heart of sovereignty. What I found the most interesting, personally was the way the author prescribed as territories was ways of being in the world including private life, gender, race and age.
As these stages of territory relate to my experience of being in the world. The observation, decryption, contextual understanding the social, historical, and political context, to decrypt texts, and to configure future forms. Although on a smaller scalar level I am hopeful that defining the limits and limitations of territories can be a practical and necessary part of being in the world.