lefea waste of space? towards a critique of the social production of space

8/19/2019 LeFeA Waste of Space? Towards a Critique of the Social Production of Space

1/4

Clark University and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic Geography.

http://www.jstor.org

lark University

ReviewAuthor(s): Erik SwyngedouwReview by: Erik SwyngedouwSource: Economic Geography, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 317-319Published by: Clark UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/144191Accessed: 17-02-2016 18:27 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 145.94.147.201 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:27:57 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/clarkhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/144191http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/144191http://www.jstor.org/publisher/clarkhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/4

BOOKREVIEWS

317

References

Barif,

R.

A.

and Knight,

P.

L.,

III. 1988. The

role

of

federal

military spending

in the

timing

of the New England

employment

turnaround.

apers of the Regional Science

Association

65:151-66.

Billings,

R. B. 1970. Regional

defense

im-

pact-A

case study

comparison

f

measure-

ment techniques.Journal

of Regional Sci-

ence

10:199-216.

Markusen,

A.; Hall,

P.; Deitrick,

S.; and

Campbell,S. 1991.

The rise of the gunbelt.

New York:Oxford

University

Press.

The Production of Space.

By Henri

Lefebvre. Translated

by D. Nicholson-

Smith. Oxford:

Basil

Blackwell,

1991.

It

has taken 17

years

for

Henri Lefeb-

vre's seminal work,

The

Production

of

Space,

to

appear

in

English

translation.

I

am

quite

convinced

that an earlier

publi-

cation would

have resulted

in

a rather

different

history

of

critical theoretical

debate

in

geography.

Lefebvre's

work

holds a unique position in the intellectual

history

of Marxism

and in the way this

history

became

appropriated

by geogra-

phers

from the late

1960s onward. Rela-

tively

few

geographers

in

the

Anglo-Saxon

world

have

taken serious

notice

of his

work.

But

those

who

have, such

as David

Harvey,

Edward Soja,

and Neil Smith,

have made major

contributions to

advanc-

ing spatial

theory.

Lefebvre's

work

stands out

in several

ways. First, his views depart significantly

from

the

official

Marxist doctrine

as

spelled

out

by

the French Communist

Party (PCF)

in

the

1950s and 1960s, but

they

are also

highly

critical

of the

humanist

Marxism of Sartre

or

Garaudy.

Second,

his views

also

depart

from

both

Althusserian

Marxism

and

from the

post-

structuralist

thinkers such

as

Foucault,

Derrida,

and

Barthes. From the

former,

he does accept

the

importance

of

repro-

duction (contrary to the productivism of

the

PCF),

and

from the latter he

accepts

the

importance

of

discourse, text,

and

representation.

But

he

puts

these

ele-

ments

together

in a

unique way in

The

Production

of Space. Lefebvre's

political

biography is

also quite distinct.

Starting

off

as

a

member of the

PCF, he left

the

party,

became one

of

the

theorists and

activists

of

the

Situationist

movement,

was one

of

the mentors and

intellectual

leaders

of

the

May

'68

movement, and

remained an adamant

grass

roots activist

who

campaigned

vigorously against the

reconstruction

of

the

Marais neighbor-

hood in Paris (which

now houses the

Centre

Pompidou)

and

other Grands

Projets

associated

with

the

Reconquest

of

Paris.

The Production of Space is the culmina-

tion

of a

series

of

thoughts developed

in a

total of four

books,

starting

in

1968 with

La Pensee

Marxiste

et

la Ville and

continued in

the

early 1970s with Le

Droit a' la

Ville and La

Revolution

Urbaine.

In

the

long

first

chapter

of The

Production

of Space,

Lefebvre

outlines

his basic

ideas, lays out

the

argument that

he

will

develop

in

the

remainder of the

book,

and

introduces the

key concepts he

needs to theorize space. His basic position

is

that

theorizing social

space

is

not

independent

from

theorizing society. So-

ciety

and

social

space

are

about each

other; they

contain each

other. A

spatial

theory

is a

social

theory

and

vice versa.

He starts

off

by addressing the

thorny

issue of

the

relationship between the

concept

of

space (or,

in

postmodern

terms,

the

way

in

which

space

is discur-

sively

constructed

in

theory)

and

experi-

ential social space. He correctly argues

that

the

inevitably

discursively

con-

structed

representation

of

space (in

nor-

mal

science)

on the one

hand

and lived

space

on

the

other

are not

independent

of

each

other,

but that

the

separation

of

these

realms

in

scientific

practice

serves

distinct

ideological purposes.

The

per-

ceived,

conceived,

and

lived

aspects

of

social

space

cannot be

captured

or

un-

derstood

by

reducing space merely

to a

coded message and reducing science to a

representation

of that code.

Viewing

the

knowledge

of lived

space

as

a

reading

and

representation

of these

codes avoids the


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

318 ECONOMIC

GEOGRAPHY

actual knowing of space-that

is, the

generative process

through

which

this

coding was constructed, or produced.

To

unveil the ideological

knowledge of

space, Lefebvre argues, we need a theory

of space (society)

and we need to discover

or construct

a theoretical unity linking

fields that

in normal theoretical

prac-

tice

are apprehended

separately-i.e.,

physical space

(nature), mental space (the

discursive construction of space),

and

social space (or experienced, lived

space).

Lefebvre argues that this unity

can be

theorized through the conceptualization

of

space

as a process,

as

being

produced.

The notion of producing space (which

takes place practically,

discursively, and

symbolically)

may sound bizarre at first,

but, Lefebvre

argues, unease

with the

concept of producing space

derives

from the

dominance of the view that

empty space is prior

to

whatever

ends up

filling it (as

in the case of, for example,

classical location theory).

The aim,

however,

is

not to

construct a

discourse of space but

to

expose the actual

production of space by bringing together

the various

kinds of space and the way

they

came about (their genesis)

within

a

single theory.

This

suggests

that

we

have

to

decode,

or

read, space (and

not start

from

concepts,

codes, and messages).

The

reading

of

space, then,

becomes the

construction and

reconstruction of the

process

of

signification

through social-

spatial practices.

The search

for

a

unitary

theory

of

physical,

mental,

and

social

space should start from the proposition

that social

space

is

a

social

product

and

in

such

a

way

that social

space

becomes

indistinguishable from

mental

and

physi-

cal

space.

If

space

is

a

social

product,

then

knowing space assumes

the reconstruction

of the

production

of

space.

This

social

space

embraces

a multitude of intersec-

tions,

which

gives meaning

to

place.

Space

is

produced through

the conflict-

ual

unity

of

a

spatial

triad: the

perceived,

the conceived, and the lived. The per-

ceived is

captured

as

spatial

practices,

which

embrace

production

and

reproduc-

tion and

are expressed

in

daily routines,

in

the practice of

everyday life. The

conceived

embodies

representations of

space, which

are

tied

to

the relations of

production

and

to the

order those

relations

impose. It

is

the

conceptualized

(discursively

constructed) space

used

and

produced

by, among others,

planners,

architects,

geographers,

and social engi-

neers, which

codify, textualize, and

hence

represent space.

Lived

space,

or

repre-

sentational space, embodies

complex sym-

bolisms. It

is the

space

of

symbols

and im-

ages, which

the

imagination

continuously

seeks to change

and

appropriate (the turf

of

gangs,

for

example).

Perceived,

con-

ceived, and lived space constitute a unity,

but

not

necessarily

a

coherence. Each

of

these categories

is

deeply

conflictual-i.e.,

contradictory-and

thus

deeply political.

Social space,

therefore, incorporates

social

action

(in practice,

representation,

and

symbolic

meaning)

and

constitutes

a

process-a process

that

assumes

an

act

of

creation,

a

process

of

production.

We

must,

therefore,

shift from

the

study

of

things

in

space

to

the

actual

production of

space. The study of a spatial object will

not tell us

anything, but the process

of its

creation lays bare

the

contradictions

of

capitalism. Geography,

therefore,

con-

tains the

code,

but the construction

of

actual

geographical

knowledge

is

achieved

through

the

excavation

of

this

process of

codification.

A

further

implication

of the

under-

standing

of

space

as a

process of

produc-

tion

is that

space

is

historical.

Each

combination of forces and relations of

production

constitutes its

own

appropriate

space. Hence,

transformative

sociospatial

practices (social

or

class

struggle) produce

new

spaces.

In

fact,

Lefebvre

argues

that

it

is

class

struggle,

necessarily

inscribed in

space,

that

prevents

the

totalizing,

ho-

mogenizing

and abstract

force

of

capital

from

eliminating

difference,

from

taking

over the

whole

planet,

and from

papering

over

old differences. Class

struggle,

broadly defined as acts of social resistance

to the

totalizing

force

of

commodities and

money,

has the

capacity

to

differentiate,

or

to

generate

differences. As

such,

social




4/4

BOOK REVIEWS

319

struggle engenders

difference through

the

re-appropriation

or the

reconquest

of

space. Both capital

and its

engendered

oppositional

forces

are, therefore, en-

gaged

in

deeply

geographical

projects

in

which homogenization

(through

the ab-

stract force of

money)

and differentiation

(through

spatial

struggle

over and through

the practice, representation,

and symbolic

meaning

of

space)

constitute

a dialectic

through

which space is produced

and

perpetually

changed.

This

geographical

struggle

takes place

in

each

of

the realms

that

constitute space.

The differentiating

pleasures

of Eros

and

the body, desire

and emancipation, face the totalizing and

exclusionary

power

of

money

and capital

for the

appropriation

of

everyday space.

An

emancipating

struggle, therefore,

be-

comes a struggle

for and over

differen-

tial

space,

over spaces

of

pleasure

and

play,

and over unoppressed

desire and

jouissance.

Lefebvre's

book

is not an

easy

read. It

draws from many disciplines

and intellec-

tual traditions, ranging

from art, architec-

ture, and culture to literature, politics,

economics,

and

philosophy.

It demands

determination

and

perseverance,

particu-

larly

for Anglo-Saxon

readers who

may

have difficulty

with his often

loose,

exploratory,

and

at first

sight

rather

abstract

writing style.

Nevertheless,

it is

well worth

the effort.

There is no doubt

that the

publication

of

The Production of

Space

is a milestone which may require

a

re-evaluation

of the recent

history

of

theoretical debate in critical geography.

The book

certainly

shows a hitherto

rarely

seen,

let alone practiced,

exploration

of

how

and

why

space

matters.

Erik

Swyngedouw

Oxford

University

Hollow Promises:

Rhetoric and Reality

in

the Inner

City. Edited by

M. Keith

and

A. Rogers. London and New York:

Mansell,

1991.

The inner city is

a

chaotic

concept. It is

a poorly defined

area of the city that

is

not

at

all

accurately

understood,

a focus of

public policy concerned more with social

control

than

with social

emancipation, and

a

handy peg

on which

to

hang

all

manner

of

ragtag

ideas and

projects, including

this

book.

As a

spatial

adjective,

the term

lacks

real

meaning.

The

inner

city

contains

some of the

poorest but

also

some of

the

richest

residents,

some

of the plushest as

well

as some of the most

dilapidated

dwellings. To

use

the term to refer

only

to

the

poor

and

dilapidated

is

to

mask

some

of

the

more

subtle

processes

at work.

Inner

city

has

become

a

kind of

shorthand for a whole variety of meanings,

from underclass to

poverty, disenfran-

chisement,

and

more

general

issues of

social control. But it is a

shorthand

notation

that

obscures rather than illumi-

nates. The term

condenses,

elides, and

ultimately conceals

very different things.

There

is

a very real

need to look at the

term

in

some

detail, give

it

historical

depth,

assess

its

variety

of

competing

meanings,

and

note its different

political

uses. Chaotic concepts need to be un-

earthed from the

weight

of

multiple

meanings piled

atop them. Like counter-

feit

bills, they are

not what

they appear at

first

glance. They need

to

be

separated

from their use

in

the

general

circulation of

ideas,

and their

buying power

needs to be

assessed,

measured,

and

explained.

The introductory chapter

promises a

beginning

in this

direction. The

editors

are aware

of the

problems

in

using the

term and begin to unpack its different

meanings

and

usages. They

would have

had a better book had

they expanded

this

chapter

into

a

complete

volume. As

it

is,

their

introductory

chapter

is

too

brief

accords the

experience

of Britain a

wider

significance

than is

justified,

and

ends

up

with some

spurious justifications

for

an

eclectic

range

of

papers.

As a

collection,

the

subsequent papers

fail

to make

any

coherent statement.

Although they

are

drawn from the

United

Kingdom

and

the

United

States,

their

focus

is so

disparate

that

no sense

emerges.

Two

of the

papers

make

interesting reading.

Bob Colenutt


lefea waste of space? towards a critique of the social production of space

Documents