While mainstream contract discourse takes spaces for granted and implies the homogeneity of individuals, the Racial Contract explicitly clarifies that space and individuals are not homogenous. While space and individuals are bound together and mutually reinforcing, they are distinguished in the discussion for analytical clarity. In classic contract and dominant discourse, the distinction between spaces is presociopolitical and postsociopolitical. That is, before and after the agreement to establish civil society, respectively. Furthermore, there are no intrinsic defects that characterize the spaces or individuals. 

The Racial Contract necessitates that non-European space and its inhabitants are intrinsically alien and defective and require external intervention from European actors. In other words, the non-European space must be Europeanized, civilized, or “tamed.” This supports Mills’s earlier suggestion that the actual state of nature in classic contract is the space inhabited by non-Europeans. Evidence of this important distinction between European space and non-European space lies in European ethnocentric theory that characterizes non-European space as wild and savage and defines European identity in opposition to that so-called savagery. This is a significant building point for the theme of Personhood vs. Subpersonhood. 

The norming and racing of space happens at macro, local, and micro levels, and along epistemological and moral dimensions.