“”Globalization involves deterritorialization.” Examine with reference to the nation-state.” (2015)
Deterritorialization means that social relations, cultures and identities come loose from a fixed place. John Tomlinson (Globalization and Culture, 1999) calls it the weakening tie between culture and territory. Anthony Giddens (The Consequences of Modernity, 1990) explains it through time-space distanciation and the disembedding of social relations from local contexts. The nation-state rests on sovereign control of a bounded territory, so the claim tests its future.
The case for deterritorialization
- Economy. Capital, finance and production chains move across borders faster than states can regulate them. Kenichi Ohmae (The End of the Nation State, 1995) called the nation-state an unnatural unit in a borderless economy. Leslie Sklair argues that transnational corporations and a transnational capitalist class now shape policy.
- Culture. Arjun Appadurai (Modernity at Large, 1996) describes global cultural flows of ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes and ideoscapes that pay no attention to borders. OTT platforms and social media produce shared tastes from Mumbai to Manchester.
- Identity. Diasporas keep identities alive far from their homeland, and Benedict Anderson called this long-distance nationalism. India is the world’s largest recipient of remittances, at US$135.4 billion in 2024-25 (RBI). The Overseas Citizenship of India scheme also detaches belonging from residence.
- Governance. The WTO, climate treaties and the OECD global minimum tax limit sovereign choice. Jan Aart Scholte calls this supraterritoriality. Cyberspace, cryptocurrencies and cross-border data flows lie partly outside any territory.
The case against
- Sceptics. Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson (Globalization in Question, 1996) show that trade is concentrated regionally and that states still set the rules. Saskia Sassen (Losing Control?, 1996) argues that states are the agents of globalisation: someone had to deregulate, so sovereignty is denationalised, not abolished.
- Re-bordering. Capital moves freely, but labour does not. Wendy Brown (Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, 2010) notes that walls multiply as sovereignty weakens. The United States put a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions in September 2025, and more than 70% of H-1B holders are Indian.
- Re-territorialization. States are reclaiming digital space. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) and its app bans assert territorial control over data.
- Resurgent nationalism. Manuel Castells (The Power of Identity, 1997) sees religious and national revival as resistance identity against global flows, visible in Brexit and populist nationalism.
Indian illustration
India both uses and resists deterritorialization. UPI now runs in several foreign countries, and IT services depend on global markets. Yet Aadhaar-linked welfare, the NRC in Assam and defence of borders show the state strengthening its territorial grip.
Conclusion
The statement is true but one-sided. Globalisation deterritorialises economy and culture while re-territorialising politics and belonging. The nation-state is not disappearing. It is changing from a sovereign container into a node in a network: it still controls borders, citizenship and legitimate force, but shares authority with markets, diasporas and supranational regimes.