{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023174971031286212, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004634994206257242, 'mean_word_length': 5.545454545454546, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The national construction of social space

Whatever else it may be, nationalism is always a struggle for control of land; whatever’else the nation may be, it is nothing if not a mode. of constructing and interpreting social space. Yet, despite the fact that both land and space have become political territories and national homelands, geographers and sociologists alike have consistently neglected these political dimensions of ’land’ and ‘territory’ in their treatment of environment and society; and though territorial conflicts between states and nations remain the fiercest and most intractable in the modern world, research into the relationships between nationalism and social space has been left largely to ethnologists, or social psychologists like Leonard Doob (Doob, 1964). Quite often, the territorial dimensions of such struggles are reduced to crude