frontiers/2007/vol. 28, nos. 1 & 2
o settlement. In keeping with this, the political role o the home—thoughever-present—is obscured. A harmonious ideal is invoked, as “the values andbehaviour inculcated in the home were considered crucial to the ormationand maintenance o national identity, a necessary protection against less pre-dictable social and economic changes.”
Using the home to stand or the colo-ny, the colonial nation’s discourse o naturalness is propagated.Such an ideal, however, is all part o the ction. This has been exposed inthe writing o Sigmund Freud, whose discussion o “The Uncanny” (“
”) captures that what is “homely” is always “unhomely.” Theexplosion o “uncanny” events both rightening and disturbing are a result o the repression o turmoil in the service o a desire to present a vision o naturalorder.
This is urther emphasized in the work o Sharon Marcus, or whomnineteenth-century metropolitan homes were, despite seemingly solid bound-aries, already “fuid spaces.”
Domestic order, denying the colonial exploita-tion and tension inherent in colonial settlement, was rigorously enorced inthe colonies themselves. In his study o colonial space in German South-WestArica, J. K. Noyes oers an account o the fuid spaces underlying colonialsettlement and the stratication o these spaces through imperial discourses.Importantly, the domestic space is not exempt rom this control. Observationo indigenous citizens’ homes by their employers and indoctrination into nor-malized domestic practices through a discourse o moral concern was com-monplace: “the dwellings are to be constructed in a specic way, because they are to be used in a specic way [. . . to enable] a strategy o surveillance andclassication.”
Here what happens inside homes plays its part: orderly, clean, and well-keptdwellings serve to maintain the colony’s order on the scale o the individualamily. At least in English colonies and neocolonial America, the home ol-lowed Victorian trends in domestic practice. Nineteenth-century domestic-ity may have been an illusion but, as Antoinette Burton emphasizes, it wasnevertheless—indeed perhaps even more so because o this—a powerul orce,and one inherently tied to colonies.
Not only was the colony described inhousehold terms, but the household, in all its grandeur, was a microcosm orthe wealth o empire and its maintenance as “the Victorian middle-class homebecame a space or the display o imperial spectacle . . . while the colonies . . .became a theater or exhibiting the Victorian cult o domesticity that neededconstant and scrupulous policing.” The spatialized hierarchies o the colonialhome seem to enorce such suggestion, “domestic space . . . mapped as a hier-archy o specialized and distinct boundaries,” in the same way that the colony is divided into territories; both divisions are heavily enorced, both boundariesnaturalized by documents—architectural plans or national maps.
That it is