2.

Question: Henri Lefebvres Production of Space and its influence on David Harveys Social Justice, Postmodernism, and the City

By Stefan Kohlwes
Student ID: 1714617 Course ID: GTSS 510 Instructor: Prof. Dr. Helga Rittersberger-Tili

04/12/2009

Henri Lefebvres Production of Space and David Harveys Social Justice, Postmodernism, and the City must both be regarded with respect to their, albeit differing, Marxian background. Lefebvre was the first to develop a unitary theory of space, attempting to get over the predominating differentiation and separation among scientific (geographical, architectural, mathematical, philosophical) approaches towards spatial analysis. His conceptualization builds upon fundamental Marxian concepts and classifications. However, whereas many Marxian theorists denied the need for a separate theory of space but stayed within the frame of a political and economic analysis of spatially deployed social relations based upon the two-class struggle between capitalist and workers, Lefebvre approached the analysis of space not merely as a territorial projection of the social relations of production but as an independent or rather autonomous set of spatial relationships (Gottdiener: 122). Lefebvres conceptualizations and conclusions may well serve as a tool for the analysis of especially and most significantly urban space and might furthermore open new roads towards agency and social change.

With a comprehensive and coherent study of what he calls the spatial dialectic, Lefebvre aims at overcoming abstract conceptions of space which tend to reduce it to its physical appearance in time, being thus seen as an empty and neutral container in which social practice evolves rather separate from and after space itself. Instead, Lefebvre defines space as materialized (e.g. in the built environment) by social processes which it then acts back upon. Thus, Lefebvre conceptualises space as being simultaneously material object (or product), the medium of social relations and the reproducer of material objects and social relations (Gottdiener: 129).

The quest for making hitherto theoretically split (social) space visible as an entity necessitates the discovery or the elaboration of a unity of theory between fields which are given as being separate. He defines those fields as the physical (nature, cosmos), the mental (which is comprised of logic and formal abstraction) and the social (Lefebvre: 5) and in two other ontologies as the lived, perceived and conceived or as the absolute, abstract and differential space. In what his conceptual triad he expresses those ontologies in spatial terms (Lefebvre: 33): 1. Spatial practice comprises the processes out of which a distinct societys space emerges. The spatial practice of a society produces its space, masters and appropriates it. (Lefebvre, 1996: 38). It includes all the contradictions of everyday life or the space perceived. 2. Representations of space refer to e.g. ideological, linguistic, symbolic relations between lived and perceived space and a conceptual framework, elaborated by architects, planners, scientists etc. This space is also named intellectuallyconceived space and dominates according to Lefebvre any society (or mode of production) (ibid.). 3. Representational spaces contain space which is directly lived and as such it is the space of inhabitants and users, also called the other within Lefebvres threepart dialectic. In the sense that representational space is concerned with imaginary and symbolic elements and thus stays predominantly descriptive, it can be characterized, in contrast to the process-related/productive social practice and representations of space, as rather passive -even though imaginary works (such as literature or fine arts) can sometimes set new aesthetic trends which might have effects on the built environment (Lefebvre 1996: 41f).

Those distinctions in sections can be used as tools for the analysis of urban space but at the same time in the framework of the spatial dialectic and the unitary theory must be seen as overlapping and interacting in social spatializations.

Moreover, Lefebvre elaborates on the interrelations between state, capitalism and space. He regards spatial design - representing hierarchies of power in space - as a political instrument of social control and of great importance for the reproduction of the respective social relations. The second but all the more causative and decisive power manifesting itself in 2

urban spatial design is Capitalism. Thus, Lefebvre notes that the state and the economy have reduced organic space to an abstraction infinitely fragmented into parts. This abstract space (mentioned above as part of his third ontology complemented by absolute and differential space) plays a crucial part in Lefebvres as well as in Harveys elaborations. Abstract space (directed by knowledge, i.e. the conceived), as the space of power is dominated by and instrumental to the state (or: all kinds of authorities) and capitalism (Lefebvre: 51). Lefebvre regards it as the predominating form of space in modern society and identifies at the same time the confrontation between abstract space and social space as the essential spatial contradiction. This space of power will eventually lead to its own dissolution on account of conflicts (contradictions) arising with it (Lefebvre: 51). Its force, materialized in space of capitalist urban areas in form of e.g. business centres, an immense network of banks or in motorways, airports etc. unfolds itself as a disintegrating and repressive factor on its surroundings, creating homogenization (different ghettos), hierarchization (distinct living districts for elites, middle class, immigrant workers etc.), and social fragmentation contributing to the modern capitalist phenomenon of alienation. Lefebvre, however, clearly expresses his hope that those spatial contradictions will eventually end in the downfall of abstract space, giving way to what Lefebvre calls differential space which will distinguish what abstract space tends to identify for example, social reproduction and genitality, gratification and biological fertility, social relationships and family relationships. (Lefebvre: 52)

It is especially this concept within Lefebvres three-way dialectic with its inherent and rather concrete contradictions and tensions which plays a decisive role in David Harveys work on Social Justice, Postmodernism, and the City. The dialectical conflict between abstract space and an alleged differential space reveals itself within the given example of Tompkins Square Park in New York City. The inscriptions in space of class, ethnic, racial and gender struggle gathering around the square was faced as a consequence of rising conflict among the different users of space by the stakeholders of the absolute space (here: state authorities) in a resolute way (Lefebvre: 365). A public space where people with different interests, different life-styles and different appearances coexisted was thus silenced and homogenized meeting the vision only of a distingct group. The central question emerging from this dialectic conflict between differential and absolute space is: What is the conception of the public incorporated into the construct of public space? 3

(Harvey: 420) One could add: Who decides what the public is? This question implies a very fundamental set of problems connected to the mentioned domination of absolute space over social space. Principally, Harvey discusses the same Dilemma when criticising Dahl and Lindbloms concept of social rationality (Harvey: 422) or in the course of the search for a unifying and activating concept of Social Justice. Social Rationality, as a concept to solve situations in which a variety of interests oppose each other is criticised for its relativity vis a vis the actors behind the respective project, meaning that there are in fact innumerable different rationalities which are being discarded in favour of, as left thinkers would say, the capitalist economic system. The same relativism can be detected concerning Harveys search for social justice. A socialist form of organization would most certainly define (social) justice in a different way than a capitalist one. The conclusion which might be drawn from the inherent relativisms is that the definitions of concepts which are supposed to serve as guidelines for decisions towards a more just society strongly depend upon the ruling class, occupying the space of power and thereby being what Lefebvre calls the producers of space. In Engels words: The conception of eternal justice, therefore, varies not only with time and place, but also with the persons concerned (in Harvey: 426).

As the concept of Production of Space implies that produced (urban) space acts back upon social relations, usually driving towards its reproduction, space and the production of space plays and will play a crucial role within social activism. Both Marxian authors are concerned with analysing and finding approaches towards a social praxis (Lefebvre) or the creation of a guide to action (Harvey) to overcome or struggle against the contradictions immanent to the space produced by capitalism (abstract space). Emanating from his conceptualisation and differing in that respect from many other Marxian thinkers, Lefebvre anticipates the transformation of modern society into a human society as an urban revolution as a revolution of spatial design organized around unalienated everyday life in addition to the politico-economic transformation. However, he stays therein on a analytical level trying to identify possible reasons for the nonexistence of resistance from the working classs opposition and for the failure of approaches such as advocacy planning, defining the silence of the user as the crucial problem (Lefebvre: 24; 364f).

As a Marxist urban geographer Harvey agrees with Lefebvre on the central role of the urban as being a centre of revolution against the established order and a centre of power and privilege to be revolted against (Katznelson: 106). On the other hand, Harvey rejects the independent determinative centrality Lefebvre assigns to spatial relations and also object Lefebvres hypothesis that urban society has come to dominate industrial capitalism Harvey searches for social justice as a possible concept which could rally people who would otherwise struggle for their own separate cause within a limited space. In spite of the justified critique of the inherent relativism, Harvey regards such abstractions as powerful mobilizing forces in what Lefebvre refers to as everyday life. In his search for justice, Harvey is influenced by Lefebvres Production of Space in the sense that he clearly identifies what one might call the geography of injustice, i.e. the impact of social production of space on social groups, their life-style or their opportunities. Analysing this injustice being produced through space, it becomes clear that spatial analysis and spatial practice can and should have an influence on social activism. Internalizing the implications of the production of space and understanding the factors and actors shaping it, demands an engagement for justice not only on the social, but also on the spatial level. The uncertainty about what a just space might look like has to be constantly negotiated in and with social groups as to overcome differences and build up solidarities.

Social policy and planning has to work at two levels. The different faces of oppression have to be confronted for what they are and as they are manifest. The different faces of oppression have to be confronted for what they are and as they are manifest in daily life, but in the longer term and at the same time the underlying sources of the different forms of oppression in the heart of the political economy of capitalism must also be confronted, not as the fount of all evil but in terms of capitalisms revolutionary dynamic which transforms, disrupts, deconstructs and reconstructs ways of living, working, relating to each other and to the environment. From such a standpoint the issue is never about whether or not there shall be change, but what sort of change we can anticipate, plan for, and proactively shape in the years to come. (Harvey: 433)

Bibliography:

Gottdiener, Mark (1985) The Social Production of Urban Space, University of Texas Press: Austin

Harvey, David (1996) Social Justice, Postmodernism, and the City in: S. Fainstein and Scott Campbell, (eds.), Readings in Urban Theory, Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 415-435.

Katznelson, Ira (1992) Marxism and the City, Oxford University Press: New York

Lefebvre, Henri (1996), reprinted The Production of Space, Chapter 1 Plan of the Present Work. Chapter 6 From the Contradictions of Space to Differential Space, Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 1-67; p. 352 400