up withcapitalismandpatriarchy(Gregson
and Lowe, 1994). Feminist geographers have
studiedthegender,classandracializedpower
relations of paid and unpaid domestic work,
and the ways in which the transnationalmigra-
tionof domestic workers, particularly women,
binds household to global economies and
inequalities (including Pratt, 2004). A wide
range of other geographical research has
explored domestic technologies and rational-
ities, domestic interiors, embodied domestic
practices and domestic material cultures
(for an overview, see Blunt and Dowling,
2006). Important themes include the ways in
which domestic practices reproduce, recastand
resist ideas about the home and/or family and
the ways in which domesticity is closely bound
up withmodernity, power andidentity.
Geographies of domesticity also extend far
beyond the household. As Amy Kaplan (2002)
observes, the term ‘domestic’ has a double
meaning, referring both to thespaceof the
nationand to the space of the household.
Both of these meanings are closely bound up
with shifting ideas about the ‘foreign,’ and are
imagined and materialized through a range of
domestic politics and practices. Rather than
view domesticity as confined to a private
sphereof influence, it is a crucial site of repro-
duction and resistance that is intimately
bound up with the world beyond, as well as
within, the household. Historical studies
reveal the ways in which domesticity was
explicitly and intimately tied to wider national
and imperial politics through, for example,
discoursesand practices concerning mater-
nity,consumptionand child-rearing (includ-
ing Stoler, 2002). Other research has shown
the importance of domesticity in anti-imperial
nationalist politics, often focusing on the
politicization of women within and beyond
the home (including Legg, 2003).
Studies of domesticity in both historical and
contemporary contexts usually focus on the
material and symbolic importance of women.
Whilst a wide range of research documents the
oppression of women through domestic work
and domestic violence, other research
explores domesticity as a site of potential cre-
ativity, power and resistance. Other researchers
have begun to investigate the domestic lives of
men and the relationships between domesticity
and masculinity (see, e.g., Tosh, 1999). ab
domination The physical or cultural asser-
tion ofpowerover an individual, social group
orterritory. The term refers to the practice
and manifestation of power relationships,
especially in terms of the construction of terri-
tory and spaces as a means of control
Domination was originally perceived in
a classicalgeopolitical sense of territorial
control. In the late nineteenth and early twen-
tieth centuries, geopolitical theories advocat-
ing the expansion of statebordersat the
expense of ‘inferior’ cultures were the basis
for thefrontierexpansion of the USA and
Russia, Germany’s desire for territory in
eastern Europe, and the establishment of
European empires. In this period, domination
was viewed as the ability of astateto control
territory – and hence its residents – on the
basis of cultural superiority. In thecold war
period, domination was also seen as a matter
of the power of states to define and attain their
own self-interests.
However, critical scholarship began to define
other forms of domination. The Marxist
Antonio Gramsci (1971 [1929–35]) noted that
theideasoftherulingclassaremainlyaccepted
by the whole of society, producing acquies-
cence in national projects of capital accumula-
tion that benefit a few (cf.hegemony). Edward
Said’s (2003 [1978]) exposition oforiental-
ismillustrated the cultural practices by which
colonial powers created a sense of superiority
over their subjects through literature and the
arts. The practices of cultural domination
have been addressed by geographers at a num-
ber ofscales, from the construction ofempire
to the normative understanding ofplacesthat
exclude particular people, groups and behav-
iours (Cresswell, 1996).
Feminist and queer studies (seefeminist
geographies; queer theory) have empha-
sized theheteronormativeandpatriarchal
characterofspacesrangingfrom thehousehold
to thenation-state(Staeheli,KofmanandPeake,
2004). In addition, the racial domination of
whitesisgainingincreasingattention(seewhite-
ness). However, criticism remains that many
human geography studies tend to ignore ques-
tions ofrace,genderandsexuality(Staeheli,
Kofman and Peake, 2004). Still, the emphasis
placed upon cultural domination has been
connected to the creation of material spaces
of racialsegregationin the city, hatecrime
activity in gayneighbourhoodsand patri-
archal practices. In a separate vein of work,
the role of the USA as hegemonic power has
attracted the attention of geographers, espe-
cially its role in dominating the global political
agenda and its massive military power. cfSuggested reading
Flint (2004); Staeheli, Kofman and Peake (2004).Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_D Final Proof page 172 1.4.2009 3:15pmDOMINATION