Introduction

Domination stands as one of the most pervasive and consequential modalities of human social interaction. Social relations of domination invariably inscribe themselves upon spatial configurations; consequently, any meaningful transformation in these relations demands a corresponding reconfiguration of space itself. The article centers on the conceptual triad of domination, space, and spatial planning. The significance of addressing this conceptual triad stems from the fact that any will to socio-economic development can only prove effective and efficient if it succeeds in creating a space commensurate with such changes and becomes embodied within that space. A will that fails to embody itself spatially is, from the outset, a defeated will. Should the developmental will seek merely to alter symbolic, political, and material structures without accompanying these changes with a reconfiguration and reorganization of space, it is destined to fail.

Drawing on the interrelationships among domination, space, and spatial planning, this study is structured to formulate a theoretical response to the following three questions: (1) What is the spatial nature of domination as one of the foremost forms of social interaction? (2) What are the temporal dynamics and processes inherent in the spatial relations of domination, and how can these dynamics be explained? (3) Is spatial planning capable of effecting change in the social relations of domination, and under what conditions does its participation in these relations possess social legitimacy?



Methodology

The article endeavors to provide theoretical responses to the above-mentioned questions within the philosophical frameworks of Nietzsche, the German philosopher, and Deleuze, the French philosopher. However, it did not confine itself exclusively to the perspectives of Nietzsche and Deleuze. Instead, it adopted a synthetic approach that also draws upon the insights of other thinkers, including Foucault, Lefebvre, and Arendt. The article does not endorse all the philosophical positions and principles of these thinkers. Given conceptual divergences among these thinkers, the analysis appropriates their concepts judiciously—only insofar as they illuminate the questions at hand. Accordingly, the article adopted a selective-synthetic position in its engagement with the aforementioned thinkers.



Results and Discussion

This study argues that the dynamics of the spatial relations of domination can be explained along two interrelated axes: the axis of material-discursive practices and the axis of spatio-temporal practices. These two axes are deeply intertwined and exert synergistic effects on one another. Based on the processes of differentiation occurring along these axes, eight types of dynamics and differentiation in the spatial relations of domination can be identified: 1) A dominant space that was initially dominant and, over time, becomes detached from its own power through its own will and transforms into a dominated space - reactive-endogenous-substantial differentiation; 2) A dominant spatial unit that was initially dominant and, over time—through processes of deterritorialization and under the will of another dominated spatial unit—transforms into a dominated spatial unit, thereby generating a new assemblage of phenomena within a spatial configuration - reactive-exogenous-substantial differentiation; 3) A dominant spatial unit that, over time and according to its own will, expands or contracts its degree of dominance - active-endogenous-gradational differentiation; 4) A dominant spatial unit that, over time and under the will of another dominated spatial unit, expands or contracts its degree of dominance - active-exogenous-gradational differentiation; 5) A dominated spatial unit that was initially subjugated and, over time and through its own will, transforms into a dominant spatial unit - active–endogenous–substantial differentiation; 6) A dominated spatial unit that was initially subjugated and, over time and through the will of another dominant spatial unit, transforms into a dominant spatial unit - active-exogenous-substantial differentiation; 7) A dominated spatial unit that, over time and according to its own will, expands or contracts its degree of subjugation - reactive-endogenous-gradational differentiation; 8) A dominated spatial unit that, over time and under the will of another dominated spatial unit, expands or contracts its degree of subjugation - reactive-exogenous-gradational differentiation. This typology incorporates a multifaceted array of geographical processes, including differentiation, deterritorialization, reterritorialization, coding, and decoding, that shape the socio-spatial relations of domination.

Spatial planning possesses social legitimacy—and institutions associated with it can be supported and defended—only when it emphasizes its active dimension by transforming dominated spatial units into dominant ones and by expanding spaces of domination. Conversely, spatial planning can become passive and reactive, turning into a static and uncreative process through the conversion of dominant spatial units into dominated ones, thereby losing its legitimacy by proliferating subjugation spaces. The capacity of spatial planning to convert dominated spaces into active, creative dominant spaces and to reproduce spaces of domination serves as the primary measure for evaluating the success of spatial programs. In other words, the contribution of spatial planning to the emergence of active and creative forces and the production of plural spaces is the hallmark of its social legitimacy.



Conclusion

The typology of the dynamics and differentiation of the spatial relations of domination provides geographers as spatial planners with a framework to, on the one hand, trace the dynamics of spatial configurations in terms of socio-spatial relations of domination through a genealogical approach to space, and on the other hand, normatively assess their own role in facilitating or impeding these changes and processes.