It really is amazing how all the concepts so far have tied together. It strikes me with every reading we have. There is always a concept of a variety of understandings of one term. Only the broad idea can be fully grasped, while geographers and sociologists argue about the fine tuning. There is understandings based on the physical, there are understandings bases on politics, and there are understandings bases on everything combined! These terms, terms that I previously believed to have understood, and blowing them up to these greater meanings causes the process of grasping and broadening your view to almost take on a philosophical tone. It is very mind-blowing in a way to take such simplistic sounding ideas and turning them into something with such a larger understanding.
Territory is described as a combination of sorts of place and the state. I understand it in my own way to be a physical, limited area where political authority exists. There cannot be a state without a territory. It was interesting to bring up international political power in our class discussion on Monday, and to point out that international political power, such as the UN, is NOT a state-simply because there is no territory for it to exist in, or for its power to permeate in! Territory is essential for a state to have meaning or any influence; perhaps this is why the UN is considered insignificant by some.
The power reading can be tied in with the concept of territory very well. Power can be understood as having networks and social influence that allows it to extend beyond those holding the power, and it becomes almost just merely an intangible existence among the people the power has authority over. This better specifies the idea of the existence of political authority within a territory, as the territory provides the physical limitations of the authority/power. Power can only reach those within its territory.