This year's fellowship theme seeks to understand and link conceptions of the body and other corporeal territorialities as these might be understood at different levels of the state and society. Most theorizations consider social bodies as corporeal "containers," seeing movement and porousness across their boundaries as social problems to be understood and controlled. By critically engaging with, and going beyond, the idea of "territorialities" we seek to expand understanding of relations between bodies and boundaries, at the level of the individual, nation-state, community, and across states. We identify below some research questions that are relevant to this direction of inquiry.

Note that this is by no means an exhaustive summary of the kinds of questions that might be asked—what follows is intended to be merely suggestive.

The first set of questions pertains to the nation state: How are concepts of a healthy nation and a powerful state linked with territoriality and the interstate system? Why and how does violence accompany such associations? How have concepts of amputation, dismemberment and partition—territorial loss—transformed our ideas of the nation-state in South Asia? Can we talk of a South Asian "geo-body" and how has that idea changed over time? How do the state's notions of territorial fixity and stability affect refugees, displaced people, and others forcibly unmoored, and can a mobile citizenship compete with the state's vision of its geo-physical limits and national obligations? Why does border-crossing produce such anxieties for post-colonial South Asian states?

A second set of questions relate to the different dimensions through which the bodies of social groups and individuals are deemed public policy issues which must be controlled and circumscribed in different ways. What are the links between the biomedical conception of population and the body politic? Why do laws to ensure the regulation of sexuality and population planning so often lead to coercive techniques of political and economic intervention, rather than moral and ethical concerns over the exercise of such control? Why is the threat of contagious disease leading to new policies justified in terms of protection of the body of the nation? How do such conceptions alter the architectural and corporeal landscapes of cities? Is it surprising that large scale disease eradication policies, notably smallpox and HIV/AIDS, adopt the language of war, seeing social bodies in terms of "targets," "containment," etc.? Does the intersection of globalization and bodies, as in sex tourism or SARS, produce non-territorialized conceptions of disease, threat, victims, and disease vectors?

A third set of questions pertains to the ways in which different disciplines and social orders conceptualize relations between bodies and sexualities. How do changing concepts of the self, body and sexuality influence behavior, traditional roles and cultural norms? How do we now conceptualize the boundaries between women's, men's and transgendered bodies? How does violence cross-connect with the gendering of identities? How is the body viewed by medical science, by the arts and by the social sciences? How are boundaries drawn between pornography, art, culture and science? How do different religions and cultural traditions view the body, sexuality and relations between them? How do different cultures, class, religions and regions define the limits of acceptable forms of birth, marriage and death? What political and cultural impact have new reproductive technologies, medical bio-informatics and cloning techniques had on our conceptions of the body in the future? Is a legal code based on 19th century conceptions of morality and the social body able to keep up with new technologies?

How do we go beyond territoriality in the imagination and making of alternative futures for the individual body, community, nation, state, region?