1

2. Question:

Henri Lefebvre’s „Production of Space“

and its influence on David Harvey’s „Social Justice, Postmodernism, and the City“

By Stefan Kohlwes 04/12/2009

Student ID: 1714617 Course ID: GTSS 510 Instructor: Prof. Dr. Helga Rittersberger-Tiliç

Henri Lefebvre’s “Production of Space” and David Harvey’s “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). Lefebvre’s 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).

2

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 society’s 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 –intellectually-

conceived 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 Lefebvre’s three-

part 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

3

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 Lefebvre’s as well as in Harvey’s 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 Lefebvre’s three-way dialectic with its inherent and

rather concrete contradictions and tensions which plays a decisive role in David Harvey’s

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?”

4

(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 Lindblom’s 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

Harvey’s 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 non-

existence of resistance from the working class’s opposition and for the failure of approaches

such as ‘advocacy planning’, defining the “silence of the user” as the crucial problem

(Lefebvre: 24; 364f).

5

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 Lefebvre’s 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 Lefebvre’s “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

capitalism’s 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)

6

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