Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space

About This Presentation

Title:

Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space

Description:

Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:2649

Avg rating:3.0/5.0

Slides: 76

Provided by: researche6

Category:

more less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space

1
Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space
2
Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space

?????/??????.?????????,???????????????????????????
?????(1974)???????????????????????????(?????????
??)?????/??????????????????????????????
????????,?????????????????,???????????????????????
??????,??????????????,???????

Henri Lefebvre, the most prolific of French
Marxist intellectuals, was born in 1901.
During his long career, his work has gone in and
out of fashion several times, and has influenced
the development not only of philosophy but also
of sociology, geography, political science and
literary criticism.

Born in the Landes of South-West France in 1901,
Lefebvre went to study philosophy in Paris at the
age of twenty, and soon became attracted to
Marxism, which was certainly not taught at the
university, but was being espoused by many young
intellectuals in the aftermath of the October
revolution.

Lefebvre joined the French Communist Party (PCF)
in 1928 and for most of the next thirty years, he
secured a margin of tolerance for his rather
heterodox interpretation of Marxism.

Lefebvre read widely in German philosophy,
finding particular affinities with Friedrich
Nietzsche, but also with Friedrich Schelling and
Martin Heidegger. Lefebvre affirmed the
superiority of Friedrich Hegel's dialectic over
formal logic, based on the dialectic's attempt to
achieve a synthesis of the concept and its
content, and therefore a synthesis of thought and
being.

7
Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space

From 1930 - 1940 Lefebvre was a professor of
philosophy in 1940 he joined the French
resistance. From 1944 - 1949 he was the director
of Radiodiffusion Française, a French radio
broadcaster in Toulouse.

In 1958 Lefebvre was expelled from the PCF.
During the following years he was involved in the
editorial group of Arguments, a New Left magazine
whose "chief merit lay in having enabled the
French public to become familiar with the
experiments in revisionism carried out in Central
Europe in the twenties and thirties."

9
Henri Lefebvre The Production of Space

In 1961 Lefebvre became professor of sociology at
the University of Strasbourg, before joining the
faculty at the new university at Nanterre in
1965. He wrote in French, English, and German.
Lefebvre died in 1991.

In his obituary, Radical Philosophy magazine
wrote
the most prolific of French Marxist
intellectuals, died during the night of 28-29
June 1991, less than a fortnight after his
ninetieth birthday. During his long career, his
work has gone in and out of fashion several
times, and has influenced the development not
only of philosophy but also of sociology,
geography, political science and literary
criticism.

Henri Lefebvre has considerable claims to be the
greatest living philosopher. His work spans some
sixty years and includes original work on a
diverse range of subjects, from dialectical
materialism to architecture, urbanism and the
experience of everyday life. The Production of
Space is his major philosophical work and its
translation has been long awaited by scholars in
many different fields.

The book is a search for a reconciliation between
mental space (the space of the philosophers) and
real space (the physical and social spheres in
which we all live). In the course of his
exploration, Henri Lefebvre moves from
metaphysical and ideological considerations of
the meaning of space to its experience in the
everyday life of home and city.

Lefebvre seeks to bridge the gap between the
realms of theory and practice, between the mental
and the social, and between philosophy and
reality. In doing so, he ranges through art,
literature, architecture and economics.

In The Production of Space (1974), Henri Lefevre
contends that there are different levels of
space, from very abstract, crude, natural space
('absolute space') to more complex spatialities
whose significance is socially produced ('social
space).

In Lefebvre's argument, the space is a social
product, or a complex social construction (based
on values, and the social production of meanings)
which affects spatial practices and perceptions.
He further argues that this social production of
urban space is fundamental to the reproduction of
society, hence of capitalism itself.

The notion of hegemony as proposed by Antonio
Gramsci is used as a reference to show how the
social production of space is commanded by a
hegemonic class as a tool to reproduce its
dominance. Social space is a social product - the
space produced in a certain manner serves as a
tool of thought and action. It is not only a
means of production but also a means of control,
and hence of domination/power. Lefebvre argues
that every society and every mode of production
produces its own space.

The city of the ancient world had its own spatial
practice, making its own space. Lefebvre argues
that the intellectual climate of the city in the
ancient world was very much related to the social
production of its spatiality. In this sense,
every society produces not only its own space,
but also its very peculiar abstraction incapable
of escaping the ideological or even cultural
spheres.

Based on this argument, Lefebvre criticizes
Soviet urban planners, on the basis that they
failed to produce a socialist space, having just
reproduced the modernist model of urban design.
In the context "Change life! Change Society!
these ideas lose completely their meanings
without producing an appropriate space in
society.

Lefebvre makes distinguished and widely read
contributions to both urban and rural sociology,
to sociolinguistics, and to the sociology of
everyday life. To some extent he is now regarded
as having been a founder in French sociology.

Lefebvre's many works reached a much wider
audience during the 1970s, and began to be
translated into English as well as other
languages. He and those with whom he had worked
during the late fifties and sixties (Morin,
Chatelet, Axelos, Goldmann, Castoriadis,
Fougeyrollas and others) became the senior
figures of the non-communist Marxist revival.

In many occasions, Lefebvre claims that the
organization of the urban time and space to fit
the lived experience of its citizens and
residents could become the focus for a renewal of
direct democratic relationships in modern society.

As an assertive and energetic Marxist to the very
end of his long life, Lefebvre believes that a
reading of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels provide
the best framework for understanding the nature
and development of society, and a revolutionary
project offers the best chance of assisting
positive human development through the reverses
and uncertainties of history.

In The Production of Space (1974), Lefebvre tries
to establish a critical review of the
relationship between the capitalistic mode of
production and the space of everyday life as
constructed, configured and maintained by the
spontaneous and cultivated human body.

In his later stage, Lefebvre focuses the study
under the theme of Rhythm. The theory of space
is the review of the synthetic act of
re-inscribing the living body into space, and
thus space is perceived, articulated and acted
upon in an organic and material context.

Lefebvre's works hold a unique position in the
intellectual history of Marxism and in the way
this history became appropriated by geographers
from the late 1960s onward.

Lefebvre's works stand out in several ways.
First, his views depart significantly from the
official Marxist doctrine by the French Communist
Party (PCF) in the 1950s and 1960s, but are
highly critical of the humanist Marxism.

Second, Lefebvre's views also depart from both
Althusserian Marxism and post-structuralist
thinkers such as Foucault, Derrida, and Barthes.
However, he emphasizes the importance of
reproduction, discourse, text, and representation.

Lefebvre addresses the relationship between the
concept of space and experiential social space.
He explains that the discursively constructed
representation of space and lived space are not
independent of each other, but that the
separation of these spaces in scientific practice
serves distinct ideological purposes.

The perceived, conceived, and lived aspects of
social space cannot be captured or understood by
reducing space merely to a coded message and a
representation of that code. Viewing the
knowledge of lived space as a reading and
representation of these codes provides a
generative process through which this coding is
constructed, or produced.

Lefebvre argues that we need to discover or
construct a theoretical unity linking different
spaces in our society, i.e., physical space
(nature), mental space (the discursive
construction of space), and social space (or
experienced, lived space).

This aim suggests that we have to decode, or
read, space (concepts, codes, and messages). The
reading of space, then, becomes the construction
and reconstruction of the process of
signification through social-spatial practices.

First of all, social space is a social product.
This social space embraces a multitude of
intersections, which gives meaning to places.

Then, space is produced through the conflictual
unity of a spatial triad the perceived, the
conceived, and the lived.
The perceived is captured as spatial practices,
which embrace production and reproduction and are
expressed in daily routines, and in the practice
of everyday life.

The conceived embodies representations of space,
which are tied to the relations of production. It
is the conceptualized and discursively
constructed space used and produced by planners,
architects, geographers, and social engineers,
which codify, textualize, and hence represent
space.

Lived space, or representational space, embodies
complex symbolisms. It is the space of symbols
and images, which the imagination continuously
seeks to change and appropriate.
The perceived, conceived, and lived space
constitute a unity, but not necessarily a
coherence. Each of these categories is deeply
conflictual and contradictory, and thus deeply
political.

Furthermore, social space incorporates social
actions and constitutes a process--a process of
creation, and a process of production. We must,
therefore, shift from the study of things in
space to the actual production of space.

Besides, the understanding of space as a process
of production is that space is historical. Each
combination of forces and relations of production
constitutes its own appropriate space. Hence,
transformative socio-spatial practices (social or
class struggle) produce new spaces.

Lefebvre further states that it is class
struggle, inscribed in space, that prevents the
totalizing, homogenizing and abstract force of
capital from eliminating differences. Class
struggle, broadly defined as acts of social
resistance to the totalizing force of commodities
and money, has the capacity to differentiate and
generate differences.

The Theoretical Background of Chapter 1 in The
Production of Space
The traditional philosophy of space (categories
of an immanent order), and science of space
(mathematics) (pp. 1-3)
The present discourse on space and its
multiplicity Society as a whole continues in
subjection to political practice, that is, state
power. (pp. 3-8)

Space and capitalist hegemony Many facets of
capitalism the hegemony of one class and space
serving as an active locus of relations
(pp. 9-11)
Lefebvre's theoretical position
a unitary theory of physical, mental and social
space each of these two kinds of space involves,
underpins and presupposes the other. (pp. 11-14)

The aim of Lefebvre's theoretical
The project I am outlining does not aim to
produce a discourse on space, but rather to
expose the actual production of space by bringing
the various kinds of space and the modalities of
their genesis together within a single theory.

The Production of Space aims to foster the
confrontation between those ideas and
propositions of space which illuminate the modern
world and to treat them as prefigurations lying
at the threshold of modernity. (p.24)

The dialectical character Instead of emphasizing
the rigorously formal aspect of codes, Lefebvre
stresses on their dialectical character in the
theory of space. Codes will be seen as part of a
practical relationship, as part of an interaction
between subjects, their space and surroundings.

Lefebvre's critique of two illusions The
illusion of transparency and the realist illusion
(pp. 27-30)
The illusion of transparency -- space appears
as luminous, as intelligible, as giving actions
free rein. It is related to the ideology which
privileges speech and writing has a kinship with
philosophical idealism.

The realist illusion The belief that things
have more of an existence than the subject,
thought and desires.
Lefebvres argument Social space is a social
product.
Its implication Every society and, hence, every
mode of production has its subvariants and
produces a space, its own space. (p. 30)

Social space contains (1) The social relations
of reproduction, i.e. the bio-physiological
relations between the sexes and between age
groups, along with the specific organization of
the family and (2) The relations of production,
i.e. the division of labor and its organization
in the form of hierarchical social functions.

Three interrelated levels in capitalist society
(1) Biological reproduction (the family) (2) The
reproduction of labor power (3) the reproduction
of the social relations of production.
(p. 32)

If space is a product, our knowledge of it must
be expected to reproduce and expound the process
of production. The object of interest must be
expected to shift from things in space to the
actual production of space. (pp. 36-37)

Lefebvre's spatial triad the perceived, the
conceived, and the lived (pp. 38-39)
1. Spatial practice embraces production and
reproduction. Spatial practice ensures
continuity and some degree of cohesion. (p. 33)
The spatial practice of a society secretes that
society's space it propounds and presupposed it,
in a dialectical interaction it produces it
slowly and surely as it masters and appropriates
it. (p. 38)For example, in the Middle Ages, the
cities embraced not only the network of local
roads, but also the main roads between towns and
the great pilgrims ways.

2. Representation of space The conceptualized
space, the space of scientists, planners,
urbanists, technocratic subdiverders and social
engineers identify what is lived and what is
perceived with what is conceived. For example,
in the Middle Ages, the Earth, the world, and the
Cosmos were fixed spheres within finite spaces,
diametrically bisected by the surface of the
Earth below is Hell, and above the Firmament.
(p. 38)

3. Representational spaces embody complex
symbolisms, coded and linked to the clandestine
or underground side of social life. It is the
space as directly lived through its associated
images and symbols, and hence its the space of
inhabitants and users, and even some artists,
writers and philosophers, who describe and aspire
to do no more than describe. For example, in the
Middle Ages, the village church, graveyard, hall
and fields, or the square and the belfry were the
representational space. (p. 39)

Absolute space is made up of fragments of nature,
but its very consecration ends up by stripping
them of their natural characteristics and
uniqueness. (p. 48)
Abstract space is the space of accumulation
(the accumulation of all wealth and resources
knowledge, technology, money, precious objects,
works of art and symbols)

Lefebvre's triad includes spatial practices,
representations of space, and representational
spaces. The model tends to distinguish
professional practices such as planning
(representations of space) from spatial patterns
of everyday life (spatial practices) and from the
symbolic meanings enacted in spatial form
(representational spaces).

Spatial practice, which embraces social
production and reproduction and the particular
locations and spatial forms characteristic of a
given social formation. Through everyday
practices, space is dialectically created as a
human and social space. This aspect of spatiality
helps to ensure continuity and some degree of
cohesion in social configurations. The spatial
practice of a society at the same time propounds
and presupposes its space in a dialectic
interaction. Lefebvre characterizes this space
as a perceived space , which embodies the
interrelations between institutional practices
and daily experiences and routines.

Representations of space are connected with the
dominant order of any society and hence with its
codes, signs and knowledge about space. This is
a conceived space, conceptualized and
discursively constructed by professionals and
technocrats planners, developers, urbanists,
social engineers and scientists and mediated
through systems of verbal signs. These
representations are abstract, but have a
substantial and decisive role in the production
of space through social and political practices.

Representational spaces embody complex symbolisms
linked to the clandestine or underground side of
social life. This space embraces places and
their symbolic value. It is the lived space the
space of inhabitants and users as well as of some
artists and writers, the space they seek to
create through appropriation of the environment.

Philosophers, such as Descartes, , Leibniz, Kant,
Foucault, Noam Chomsky, J. M. Rey, Kristeva,
Barthes and Derrida discuss the concept of space
and the social space. However, the
philosophico-epistemological notion of space is
fetishized and the mental space comes to envelop
the social and physical ones. (pp. 1-5)

Science of space has three propositions
It represents the political use of knowledge.
It implies an ideology to employ a disinterested
knowledge,
It embodies at best a technological utopia within
the framework of the existing mode of production.
(pp. 8-9)

In terms of a unitary theory of space, we are
concerned with, first, the physicalnature, the
Cosmos secondly, the mental, including logical
and formal abstractions and, thirdly, the
social. In other words, we are concerned with
logical-epistemological space, the space of
social practice, the space occupied by sensory
phenomena, including products of the imagination
such as projects and projections, symbols and
utopias.
(pp. 11-12)

Following the theses and hypotheses of Hegel,
Marx and Nietzsche, the concept of space and time
carries three characteristics
The state is consolidating on a world scale. It
plans and organizes society rationally, with the
help of knowledge and technology.
The rationality of the state, of its techniques,
plans and programmes provokes opposition.
Class struggle continues on its way to the state.
(pp. 23-24)

There are four implications to say that social
space is a social product.
Natural space is disappearing. (p. 30)
2. Every society or every mode of production
produces its own space. (p. 31)
3. If space is a product, our knowledge of it
must be expected to reproduce and expound the
process of production. (p. 36)
4. The forces of production (nature labor and
the organization of labor technology and
knowledge) and the relations of production play a
part in the production of space. (p. 46)

Social space incorporates social actions, the
actions of subjects both individual and
collective who are born and who die, who suffer
and who act. From the point of view of these
subjects, the behavior of their space is vital
and mortal within it, they develop, give
expression to themselves, and encounter
prohibitions then they perish, and that same
space contain their graves. Thus, social space
works as a tool for the analysis of society.

In seeking to understand the three moments of
social space, it may help to consider the body.
Social practice presupposes the use of the body
the use of the hands and sensory organs. This is
the realm of the perceived. As for the
representations of the body, they derive from
knowledge of anatomy, of physiology, of sickness
and its cure. Lastly, the lived experience of the
body is concerned with culture and morality.
(p. 40)

We should have to study not only the history of
space, but also the history of representations.
History would have to take in not only the
genesis of these spaces but also their
interconnections, distortions, displacements,
mutual interactions, and their links with the
spatial practice of the particular society or
mode of production. (p. 42)

Spatial practice, representations of space and
representational spaces contribute in different
ways to the production of space according to
their qualities and attributes, according to the
society or mode of production in question, and
according to the historical period. Relations
between the three moments of the perceived, the
conceived and the lived are never simple or
stable. (p. 46)

Absolute space was made up of fragments of nature
located at sites which were chosen for their
intrinsic qualities, but whose very consecration
ended up by stripping them of their natural
characteristics and uniqueness. Thus natural
space was soon populated by political forces.
Typically, architecture picked a site in nature
and transferred it to the political realm by
means of a symbolic mediation. (p. 48)

Abstract space takes over from historical space,
which lived on as substratum or underpinning of
representational spaces. Abstract space
functions objectively as a set of things/signs
and their formal relationships. For example,
monuments have a phallic aspect tower exude
arrogance and the bureaucratic and political
authoritarianism immanent to a repressive space
is everywhere. (p. 49)

The reproduction of the social relations of
production within abstract space inevitably obeys
two tendencies the dissolution of old relations
on the one hand and the generation of new
relations on the other. Thus, despite of its
negativity, abstract space carries within itself
the seeds of a new kind of space.
(p. 52)

Capitalism and neocapitalism have produced
abstract space, which includes the world of
commodities, its logic and its worldwide
strategies, as well as the power of money and
that of the political state. This abstract space
is founded on the vast network of banks, business
centers and major productive entities, such as
motorways, airports, and information. (p. 53)

The class struggle in the production of space is
a cardinal one in that this production is
performed solely by classes, fractions of classes
and groups representative of classes. It has the
capacity to differentiate and generate
differences which are not intrinsic to economic
growth. The forms of the class struggle are now
far more varied than formerly. They include the
political action of minorities. (p. 55)

A remarkable instance of the production of space
on the basis of a difference internal to the
dominant mode of production is supplied by the
current transformation of the perimeter of the
Mediterranean into a leisure-oriented space for
industrialized Europe. Economically and
socially, architecturally and urbanistically, it
has been subjected to a sort of neocolonization.
(p.58)

Change life! and Change society! mean nothing
without the production of an appropriate space.
The injunction to change life originated with the
poets and philosophers has fallen into the public
domain with political slogans, such as Live
better! Live differently! the quality of
life, and lifestyle. (p. 59)

The reconstruction of a spatial code of a
language to inhabitants, architects and
scientists, indeed, recaptures the unity of
dissociated elements, breaking down barriers
between private and public, and identifying both
confluences and oppositions in space. It, thus,
brings together the micro and macro levels and
comprises disparate elements and links
homogeneous mass of space. (p.64)

The new concept of the production of space,
appeared at the start, must operates and works in
such a way according to the fashion of the
Hegeliansa life and strength of its own space
and an autonomous reality to knowledge, and then
validates its own coming-into-being, and,
finally, arrives at a truth of in-itself-and-for-i
tself completely and yet relatively. (p.67)