Background Context:
Lefebvre lived from 1900- 1991 and was considered a neo-marxist and an existentialist philosopher who studied sociology of urban and of rural life, among many more topics. His contributions to the field of philosophy have made him a key figure when discussing topics like space and modernity (Wikipedia, 2015).
In his lifetime, he wrote over 60 books and 300 articles. He was a university professor at the University of Strasbourg starting in 1960. In 1974, he wrote The Production of Space which revolutionized how we conceive of space as urban designers, planners, and citizens of a society (Wikipedia, 2015).
A Brief Summary:
In twenty one parts, Lefebvre discusses space and the production of space to highlight the complicated systems of meaning and use we assign to space. Lefebvre first discusses how space has traditionally never been defined in a concrete way and shows how the highly theoretical, mental spaces yielded by a theory of mathematical practice haven’t quite connected to practiced physical and social places. As a result, there’s a vagueness when talking about space that allows arguments to slip in merit and thus, create an abyss of knowledge that bridges the highly theoretical to the observed, practiced, real space.
Part of this lack of universal definition of space made room for many classifications and divisions of space. For example, these divisions can yield political space, social space, mental space, economic space, natural space, etc. On page 3, Lefebvre said, “we are forever hearing about the space of this and/or the space of that: about literary space, ideological spaces, the space of dream, psychoanalytic topologies, and so on and so forth.” What happens here is an endless division that becomes highly nuanced. No idea can then be articulated without clearly defining its space first. As a result, Lefebvre notes that we should study these spaces and codes of spaces in order to find a “truth of space” and a unitary theory that derives some sort of common code about the space we live in and defines some sort of system of space.
Lefebvre then goes on to note an important idea: the product of space and the process of production of space. The two ideas are inextricably linked, but the importance behind them is that we must study how previous codes of space were constructed and destroyed so that we can form our new codes from what we learn. This moves us from product to production- how to make new space, not just to exist within created spaces.
The notion that production of space and product are linked closely leads Lefebvre to the idea that “a social space is a social product” meaning that the space is defined and is a product of the social history itself. Lefebvre spends great detail examining why this is true and then examines the consequences if it is in fact true. The first implication is that natural space is disappearing, which leads to a lack of space that is available to be produced. On page 31, Lefebvre notes that “true, nature is resistant and infinite in its depth, but it has been defeated and now waits only for its ultimate voidance and destruction.” The certain physicality and originality of space is disappearing, so we have to think differently about this now. The second implication of the “social space is a social product” idea is that every society has its own place and it forges its own spatial practices along the way. As a result, space embraces and contains multitudes of nuanced intersections.
Another implication is that because we know about the process of production of space, we should be able to use that to inform future production of space. In order to understand this, Lefebvre yet again breaks space down into three different subsets of understanding space: spatial practice, representations of space, and representational spaces. Lefebvre concludes, “It is reasonable to assume that 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, conceived, and the lived are never either simple or stable, nor are they positive in the sense that they are opposed to the negative” (46, 1974). While Lefebvre broke space down, he concludes that space and our divisions of understanding space are never stable and shouldn’t be interpreted as such.
The last implication that Lefebvre studies is the history of space through abstract and absolute space. On page 48, Lefebvre notes that “the history of space cannot be limited to the study of the special moments constituted by the formation, establishment, decline, and dissolution of a given code. It must also deal with the global aspect- with modes of production as generalities covering specific societies with their particular histories and institutions.”
Near the end of the chapter, Lefebvre discusses what happens if every society produces a space. While this may seem inconsequential, Lefebvre thinks that the danger lies for those who don’t have a space. As a result, those societies would become folklore and disappear quickly because there’s nothing to tie them down. History will wash out and replace their ideas. (I’m not sure I agree with this.) To explain this idea more, he discusses the idea of state socialism. On page 59, Lefebvre said, “the truth is that all this seemingly non-productive expense is planned with the greatest care: centralized, organized, hierarchized, symbolized, and programmed to the degree, it serves the interests of the tour-operators, bankers and entrepreneurs of the places such as London and Hamburg. To be more precise, and to use the terminology introduced earlier: in the spatial practice of neocapitalism (complete with air transport), representations of space facilitate the manipulation of representational spaces (sun, sea, festival, waste, expense).” The last line of this is key. Having space makes room for representational spaces that create meaning for the society.
Lefebvre concludes the chapter with a discussion of Marx’s approach to space and concludes that in order to really prove a new concept of the production of space, we need to create a concept that sheds light on processes by being an inseparable product of those processes.
How this relates to the Instruction Sets for Strangers:
This is important in our understanding of spacial construction as a function of the environments that it exists in. For example, we can’t separate Washington Sq Park from all of the social, political, economic, and personal spaces that have helped shaped the physical space that it is. We have to notice the relationships within the space that add to it’s societal meaning overall. In this context, Washington Square Park is a place rooted in connection, artistic expression, interpretation, and observation. Washington Square Park is not just a theoretical entity of thought, but a physical space and product constructed and shaped through the process ever changing societal meaning.
Note: We also presented this topic and broke it down easily, so for the final presentation please visit:
http://prezi.com/ydmqt_s7_qsn/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
Source:
Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Oxford, OX, UK: Blackwell, 1974.
PROCESS NOTES:
Because I found this highly academic reading so dense and confusing at points, I’ve added my running notes as I went though the text in order to highlight how I interpreted each part and what stood out to me most.
These are rough notes and should be read as such. They serve to highlight my thought process as I was reading and grappling with this text. Please refer to my summary and big ideas section for full thoughts and comments on the text as a whole.
Parts 1 & 2:
Space has never been clearly defined.
Discussion between philosophers tackling the idea of space as an attribute of something or as a seperate entity containing all things.
Math came to define space and appropriate it due to math’s perceived importance over studies like philosophy. Math defined it in terms of theoretical mental spaces that were invented and then defined by math. No clear relationship between physical/social reality and mathematical space. Thus, philosophers took over and the problem of bridging mathematical topologies to physical spaces and practice/study became an issue.
Part 3:
Defining the concept of mental space. Never cleanly defined and thus leaves room for misinterpretation/vagueness/confusion and manipulation. “We are forever hearing about the space of this and/or the space of that: about literary space, ideological spaces, the space of dream, psychoanalytic topologies, and so on and so forth.” page 3.
Which leads to scientific gaps between definitions and our understanding of space as a whole. The mental realm of everyone’s arguments overshadows social and physical spaces because nothing is concretely defined, thus creating an abyss of true understanding between mental spaces and physical ones.
Part 4:
Lack of science of space.
Bleeding of disciplines, blurring of lines.
There used to be a common code to discuss space.
The notion of specialized spaces- looking at it via specialized space means that we would be subject to endless division- i.e. geographical space, political space, social space, economic space, etc.
There’s a need for a “truth of space”- an overall truth derived from analysis
(page 9)
in order for this truth of space to exist, we must get rid of these divisions and understand them as a whole system of pressures
Part 5:
bracketed notions of space
dominant notions of ideas end up defining them as a whole- this is wrong. Totality is open and it isn’t an easily defined set of concrete spaces.
Part 6:
Unitary theory- constructing a unity between theoretical fields in a subject.
In our case, we have three fields: space of social practice, sensory phenomena space, symbols and utopia.
“Our knowledge of the material world is based on concepts defined in terms of the broadest generality and the greatest scientific abstraction. Even if the links between these concepts and the physical realities to which they correspond are not always clearly established, we do know that such links exist and that the concepts or theories that they imply can neither be conflated nor separated from one another”
We can’t use physical theory’s way of describing unitary theory because they focus on unifying elements and thus provide a container to hold them together, but no framework to learn a paradigm from.
Part 7:
finding the term to describe the division between types of spaces
act of production and producing space
-there comes a divide again: the particular (social space), the general (logical and mathematical), singular (physical and sensory reality)
Part 8:
looking at how common spatial terms come to distinguish particular spaces and places (corner, room, hallway, center)
should we try to make an inventory of these terms and then find a paradigm based on that?
spatial code- construction of a system of space
goal: “to expose the actual production of a space by bringing the various kinds of space and the modalities of their genesis together within a single theory”
does language accompany or follow a social space? / these languages of space show that there’s some sort of spatial code/s that have existed throughout time.
Part 9:
surrealism and space: seeking to find how people transition from subjective space to the material world
Part 10:
“Just as Nietzschean space has nothing in common with Hegelian space, so Nietzchian time, as theatre of universal tragedy, as the cyclical repetitious space- time of death and of life, has nothing in common with Marxist time..” p 22
different modes of thinking about the same topic- the idea is to create confrontation about ideas of place.
Part 11:
we must study how previous codes of space were constructed and destroyed so that we can form our new codes from what we learn. This moves us from product to production- how to make new space, not just to exist within created spaces.
Part 12:
Examining the term “social space is a social product”
Part 13:
How is “social space is a social product” proven true?
- The illusion of transparency
- designing to seem easy to interpret
- The realistic illusion
- natural simplicity
- The illusion of substantiality, naturalness and spatial opacity
- when something isn’t tended to, it will seem natural
Part 14:
What are some implications and consequences of the fact that social place is a social product?
- natural space, and thus physical, is disappearing
- it’s a common point of departure and seen as the origin
- nature is becoming lost to thought
“True, nature is resistant and infinite in its depth, but it has been defeated and now waits only for its ultimate voidance and destruction” – 31
a certain physicality of space is disappearing-
Part 15:
Second implication that social place is a social product:
every society has its own place and it forges its own spatial practices along the way
social space contains:
- the social relations of reproduction (bio-physical relationships between opposite sexes and age groups)
- the relations of production (division of labor)
these two relations within the social space are tied together
idea:
space embraces and contains multitudes of nuanced intersections
Conceptual Triad:
- spatial practice
- defines social characteristics
- representations of space
- “tied to relations of production”
- about codes of production of space
- representational spaces
- all about symbolisms and deeper meaning behind spatial interactions and spheres
- codes of representational spaces
Part 16:
subjects within a space
social spaces work for analyzing societies
creation of social space is a process and each mini social space has its own set of processes and baggage
Part 17:
Third implication of “social place is a social product”
if spaces are products, what we know about them should aid to the process of producing these spaces around the world
shift from the things in space to the production of space
when discussing this idea more, the author notes that it’s actually impossible to separate product of space and process of production because the process is inherently part of the product. the history of the product exists and has influenced it in many ways
thinking about space in three ways:
spatial practice- how society interacts within the framework of its space
representation of space- conceptual space for thinkers and producers of society
representational spaces- symbolic overlay of physical space, where the thinkers and artists exist and where people directly live through interpretation of these spatial symbols and underlying meanings
thinking about the body in relation to spatial experience
Sum up:
“It is reasonable to assume that 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, conceived, and the lived are never either simple or stable, nor are they positive in the sense that they are opposed to the negative..” p 46
Part 18:
fourth implication of “social place is a social product”
history of space
“The history of space cannot be limited to the study of the special moments constituted by the formation, establishment, decline, and dissolution of a given code. It must also deal with the global aspect- with modes of production as generalities covering specific societies with their particular histories and institutions.” page 48
Absolute Space vs Abstract Space
“Absolute space was made up of fragments of nature located at sites which were chosen for their intrinsic qualities but whose consecration ended up stripping them of their natural characteristics and uniqueness”- p 48
essentially, these were places that are serene in nature but were assigned some cultural or social meaning and thus took meaning from that (i.e. religious or political)
abstract place occurs in the negative
Part 19:
considering the consequences if every society produces a space
basically for those societies who don’t have a space, they would become mere folklore and disappear quickly- leaving a slight trace but nothing more
explores this idea through state socialism and whether it has a space or not
“The truth is that all this seemingly non-productive expense is planned with the greatest care: centralized, organized, hierarchized, symbolized, and programmed to the degree, it serves the interests of the tour-operators, bankers and entrepreneurs of the places such as London and Hamburg. To be more precise, and to use the terminology introduced earlier: in the spatial practice of neocapitalism (complete with air transport), representations of space facilitate the manipulation of representational spaces (sun, sea, festival, waste, expense).” p 59
Part 20:
when new social relationships occur, new spaces to facilitate them need to occur
“By seeking to point the way towards a different space, towards a space of different social life and of a different mode of production, this project straddles the breach between science and Utopia, reality and identity, conceived and lived. It aspires to surmount these oppositions by exploring the dialectical relationship between possible and impossible, this both objectively and subjectively.” p 60
Part 21:
Discusses Marx’s approach to space and concludes in order to really prove a new concept of the production of space, we need to create a concept that sheds light on processes by being an inseperable product of those processes.
Cat Schmitz 