Rethinking Domicide: Towards an Expanded Critical Geography of Home

Abstract

Domicide, the intentional destruction of home, is a concept first conceived by Canadian geographers Porteous and Smith in 2001. In the current global sociopolitical landscape, domicide and its impact is writ large, present in both the Global North and South, and spanning a variety of scales, from mass displacement through the Syrian civil war to controversial UK housing policy. However, it has been underrepresented in critical geographies of home literature. This paper calls for a resurrection and recasting of the term, highlighting the multitude of contexts in which rethinking domicide provides an important contribution towards the expansion of critical geographies of home scholarship. The paper focuses on four areas of geography in which scholars have begun to explore and extend the term: emerging literature concerning home unmaking; socio-symbolic domicide in the geopolitical context; domicide and heteronormativity in post-disaster home loss; and agency and resistance to domicide through both political activism and banal resistances of the everyday. In sum, this fourfold exploration highlights both the current and potential contributions of domicide towards expanding critical geographies of home.

Durable Domestic Dreams: Exploring Homes in Estonian Socialist‐era Summerhouse Settlements

“…It was even true for those who did not have enough resources to renovate, such as Alexey, or for those whose house looked finished, like Kerli. This conclusion confirms the emphasis of the critical literature on understanding the concept of home as being unstable and dynamic, in constant flow and changing (Blunt and Dowling, ; Brickell, ; ; Baxter and Brickell, ; Nowicki, ). The participants’ positive attitudes towards and pride in their houses, their plots and their connection with nature close by and beyond reflect their enjoyment of the process of (re)making their homes and of bringing it closer to their ideal and their dreams.…”

“…Homemaking requires physical space, and spending time and resources there (Douglas, ); this makes a home familiar and known to its dwellers. The making of the home as an everyday practice through beautification and by adding materialities to it is a natural urge that can help establish a sense of home quite rapidly, even new surroundings (Nowicki, ). Home materialities are the symbols that instil a sense of personal attachment to the concrete homeplace (house), which is thus constructed mentally.…”

“…Homes can be made and unmade, as Baxter and Brickell (: 135) explain: ‘Home un making recognizes that peoples’ domestic lives are rarely fixed or predictable, but rather dynamic and varied’. The intentional destruction of home is defined as domicide and, although homes are intimate, ‘the personal tragedy of domicide lies embedded within wider political contexts’ (Nowicki, : 788). Therefore, domestic lives are influenced by personal relations, but there are also relations to the wider social and political context surrounding the home; as Blunt and Dowling (: 27) assert, ‘home is not separated from public, political worlds but it is constituted through them’.…”

“…Mari Nuga is also grateful to all participants for their willingness to participate in this study. establish a sense of home quite rapidly, even new surroundings (Nowicki, 2014). Home materialities are the symbols that instil a sense of personal attachment to the concrete homeplace (house), which is thus constructed mentally.…”

The Right to Home: Domicide as a Violation of Child and Family Rights in the Context of Political Violence

“…Despite the numerous historical and contemporary examples of domicide, the concept of domicide has been largely absent from various literatures ranging from geography to human rights (Nowicki, ). Yet considering the impact of domicide on children and families living in the context of political violence, there is an obvious link between ‘home un making’ (Baxter and Brickell, ) and its relationship to human rights.…”