I realized that I did not include endnotes for Geophilosophy. They can can be downloaded here.
I was also looking at an earlier chapter and, given how central the terms reterritorialization and deterritorialization are for our chapter, I thought I would include this quote from chapter two ‘Conceptual Personae’.
It seems to us that a social field comprises structures and functions, but this does not tell us very much directly about particular movements that affect the Socius. We already know the importance in animals of those activities that consist in forming territories, in abandoning or leaving them, and even in re-creating territory on something of a different nature (ethologists say that an animal’s partner or friend is the ‘equivalent of a home’ or that the family is a ‘mobile territory’). All the more so for the hominid: from its act of birth, it deterritorializes its front paw, wrests it from the earth to turn it into a hand, and reterritorializes it on branches and tools. A stick is, in turn, a deterritorialized branch. We need to see how everyone, at every age, in the smallest things as in the greatest challenges, seeks a territory, tolerates or carries out deterritorializations, and is reterritorialized on almost anything – memory, fetish, or dream. . . . Social fields are inextricable knots in which the three movements are mixed up so that, in order to disentangle them, we have to diagnose real types or personae. The merchant buys in a territory, deterritorializes products into commodities, and is reterritorialized on commercial circuits. . . . We believe that psychosocial types have this meaning, to make perceptible, in the most insignificant or the most important circumstances, for formation of territories, the vectors of deterritorialization, and the process of reterritorialization. – What is Philosophy, 67-68.