Document Type : بنیادی(Stem, Basic)
Author
Department of Geographi, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Domination is a pervasive social modality, always inscribed in space - so transforming these relations requires reshaping space. This article endeavors to articulate the spatio-temporal nature of domination relations through a selective synthesis of concepts drawn from the philosophies of Nietzsche, Deleuze, Lefebvre, Foucault, and Arendt. Simultaneously, it offers a framework for critically assessing the legitimacy of spatial planning within these power dynamics. The article was theoretical in character and adopted a selective-synthetic methodology. It draws upon concepts from the above-mentioned philosophies only to the extent that they serve the research aims. This article 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. Accordingly, eight types of dynamics and differentiation in the spatial relations of domination can be identified: 1) Reactive-endogenous-substantive differentiation; 2) Reactive-exogenous-substantive differentiation; 3) Active-endogenous-gradual differentiation; 4) Active-exogenous-gradual differentiation; 5) Active- endogenous-substantive differentiation; 6) Active-exogenous-substantive differentiation; 7) Reactive-endogenous-gradual differentiation; 8) Reactive-exogenous-gradual differentiation. 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. The typology 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 geographical genealogy, and on the other hand, normatively assess their own role in facilitating or impeding these changes and processes.
Extended Abstract
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. The spatio-social relations of domination can be conceptualized through either positive or negative modalities. The conventional mode of conceptualizing these relations is the negative one. A paradigmatic example of this approach is Marxist geography. Accordingly, dominant spaces (dominant territories, networks, or levels) refer to those that control the will and power of other spaces in alignment with their own will and power. In contrast, dominated spaces are those that have been detached from their own will and power by dominant spaces, such that their will and power are controlled by the latter. In this interpretation, domination is inherently exercised over other spaces. Following Deleuzian terms, they constitute molar spaces grounded in hierarchical relations. On the other hand, social relations of domination among geographical spaces can also be conceptualized through a positive modality. This way of conceptualization is the theoretical foundation of the article. In this approach—which is emphasized by both Nietzsche and Deleuze—a dominant space is one that actualizes what it wills. Affirmative dominated spaces are molecular spaces. They develop on the lines of flight and rhizomatic relations. Furthermore, a dominated space is one that has become detached from its own power, or one that controls the will and power of other geographical spaces in alignment with its own will and power. According to this affirmative approach to the spatio-social relations of domination, a dominant space is not a space that exercises domination over other spaces by controlling and subordinating their will and power to its own. Rather, it is a space capable of actualizing what it itself wills, without restricting the will of other geographical spaces.
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? This study distinguishes itself from other approaches—such as Marxism or the social Darwinism—that have also addressed socio-spatial relations of domination. On the one hand, unlike social Darwinism, it does not confine itself merely to the analysis and explanation of relations of domination; rather, it offers a normative standard for evaluating these relations. On the other hand, in opposition to Marxism's negative stance on relations of domination, this article advances an affirmative, positive perspective grounded in the philosophies of Nietzsche and Deleuze. While Marxist approaches adopt a negative stance toward relations of domination and seek to eliminate dominant spaces in favor of dominated ones, the article, while defending dominant spaces, argues that instead of a negative approach toward dominant spaces, dominated spaces should be transformed into dominant ones. Moreover, unlike the Marxist approach, which analyzes and evaluates the concept of domination primarily in relation to class relations (the capitalist class and the working class), the concept of domination in this article is not limited to class relations. Adopting a more comprehensive perspective, it refers to the spatial relations among the social forces of the state, the market, and the society. The approach developed enables spatial planners, on the one hand, to trace the dynamics and transformations of spatial configurations through the lens of socio-spatial domination relations, and on the other hand, to normatively assess their own position in either facilitating or impeding these changes and processes.
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
Space should be regarded as an assemblage or a body in which heterogeneous human (social and economic) and non-human phenomena or forces are distributed and connected within geographical territories, networks, and levels. According to their position within this body and the connections among them, these forces produce specific spatial configurations. The territories, networks, and levels configured within a spatial assemblage or body possess complex spatial relations of domination based on the quality and quantity of power relations. These relations are composed of both molar (hierarchical) and molecular (rhizomatic and smooth) relations. 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. Four types pertain to the dynamics of dominant spaces, while the other four types concern the dynamics of dominated spaces. This typology highlights both qualitative and quantitative distinctions within power relations and the spatial dynamics of domination. However, the qualitative dynamics of forces hold greater significance since what transforms a spatial unit into a dominant space or a dominated space is not the quantity of its force, but the quality of that force: 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. The task of geographical genealogy is to trace the various types enumerated above and to explain the new spatial configurations that have been constituted on the basis of the material-discursive axis and the spatio-temporal axis. Geographical genealogy serves as a methodological framework for analyzing processes of differentiation in the socio-spatial relations of domination. It rests upon the fundamental idea that the dynamics of socio-spatial relations of domination display a random, non-linear, and chaotic process.
Spatial planning, as defined in this article, refers to a normative collective-rational-political action that is oriented toward the graphing and re-graphing of spatial patterns and processes of domination through the production and actualization of spatial maps and plans across different geographical scales and temporal horizons. Geographical maps are not merely expressions—in Deleuze’s terminology—of a spatial body; rather, they organize that body. In other words, geographical maps do not simply represent the spatial actualization or assemblage of social forces; they actively influence the quality of the spatial actualization and composition of phenomena and forces. Beyond expressing the spatial actualization of social forces, they determine the range of action and reaction available to those forces.
Spatial planning, according this definition, possesses social legitimacy 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. An empowered spatial body is one whose elements are assembled according to the logic of creativity, difference, and multiplicity. Spatial planning that adheres to this criterion possesses social legitimacy to intervene in the socio-spatial relations of domination. The instruments of spatial planning for achieving the above criterion should be pursued along the two axes previously identified: The axis of material-discursive practices, which focuses on the decoding of stabilized codes that serve molar spaces and the creative recoding of these practices; and the axis of spatio-temporal practices, which centers on processes of geographical deterritorialization, reterritorialization, the delineation of lines and networks of flight, and the analysis of rhythms.
Conclusion
This study, drawing upon a positive approach to the domination, has sought to elucidate the spatio-temporal nature of social relations of domination and to provide an initial framework and typology for understanding the processes of differentiation within these relations. By establishing a distinction between the negative and positive approaches to the understanding of relations of domination, the article has offered a criterion for evaluating the success or failure of spatial planning. It argues that spatial planning possesses social legitimacy only when it highlights its active dimension—by transforming dominated spaces (molar spaces) into dominant spaces (molecular spaces) and by expanding dominant spaces—thereby promoting creativity, differentiation, and multiplicity. The legitimacy of spatial planning derives from the extent to which it contributes to the creation of diverse geographical units and the preservation of processes of differentiation. Emphasis on differentiation and multiplicity, however, does not imply separation, abstraction, or fragmentation of spatial units from one another. Rather, it refers to the assemblage of diverse and multiple spatial units into dynamic and empowered spatial bodies. The typology of the dynamics and differentiation of the spatial relations of domination, as presented in this article, 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.
Funding
There is no funding support.
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved the content of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper. The author acknowledges the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for translating the manuscript from Persian to English and for editing and improving the English language of the article.
Keywords
Subjects
