Henri Lefebvre: the social production of space
3 types of space- physical, social and representational
Traditional view- space is empty and fixed by its physical boundaries. This idea of space is associated with the classical physics of Newton as the space within which bodies move. As such Lefebvre, 1994 Prod. of Space (p.169) describes it as a view of space as being substantial, absolutely fixed and empty. As against this view Liebniz argued with/against Newton that space was relational i.e. it could only be grasped in terms of what it related to what e.g. the spaces of urban life exist relationally in the sense that they are linked aspects of a single division of labour- industry, finance, consumption, leisure, administration are all interdependent spaces of urban life.
This idea of space is of a space that doesn’t exist separately from the things (as above) that occupy it. (ibid., pp.169-70). All activities nevertheless also exist in physical environments (absolute space) at the same time. Relational (social) space can be reduced by speeding up the connections between different activities e.g. via use of the Internet or faster modes of travel (see below on this).
For Lefebvre (The Urban Revolution) space in modern capitalism is often determined by property values: this determines who lives where- a relationality of class residential spaces. Lefebvresees this as an abstract relationality of money values (commodity relations).
Lefebvre- the three types of space are thus overlaid or organised by social constructions of space which we experience as ’lived space’. In other words, lived spaces are also spaces of representation in that they concern how we symbolise space, what meaning it has for us. For example, the built environment of the city is a physical space which has social spaces such as physically-based car parks and cathedrals which have a certain meaning for us. Depending on the construction of space so we experience it and imagine/represent it. Cities dominated by car parks are experienced and symbolised differently from those say, dominated by cathedrals.
Space becomes increasingly abstract as the city/urban centres develop: there are more specialised spaces in such cities- industrial, administrative, financial spaces/places for instance. Spaces are increasingly dominated by rental values and their consequence- property developers. The latter often control urban development
Space and time are interlinked: our sense of space is linked to the time it takes to move across it. Hence the horse, car, train or plane provide different senses or constructions of space.
Globalisation produces a compression of space as the Internet and global interconnectedness make the world seem smaller: producing a different kind of space i.e. smaller space. Hence spaces must be thought of relationally -the space of walking compared to the space of the jet plane etc.
Space is about power relations- territoriality, for example.
Space is heterogeneous- broken up into places of specialised activities – activity spaces (Massey)
Spaces have their own time or rhythms of development
E.g. Milton Keynes shopping centre contains the spaces of leisure (strolling, gathering, meeting, passing the time of day), the spaces of consumption (shopping times) and the space of calendrical time as it is oriented to the high point of the summer sun (summer solstice). The space-time rhythms of urban developers also intrude in shop rentals and their attempts to control public access to the shopping centre (see Owen Hatherley in Maev Kennedy: 'Milton Keynes shopping centre becomes Grade 11 listed building', Guardian, 16th July, 2010 and his A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain
Representational spaces- these are the activity spaces occupied/produced by those who develop ideas in the form of symbols, images, concepts, theories…for example anthropologists, architects, sociologists, advertisers, artists, journalists and so on
Representations of space- products of the imagination which has lived through the experience of particular relational activities e.g. travelling from A to B, working with other professions, trades which provide a sense of relative nature of work/skills etc. and their different rhythms/routines of life
Criticism of Lefebvre- whilst he sees property values as abstract rather than real critics have argued that money and property values, although abstractions from everyday life in that they don’t recognise individual, personal or intrinsic worth of things but only their market value, are nevertheless real in that they determine where we can live, what we can buy etc. i.e. they are real abstractions. For example, towns and cities have tended to become standardised with the same sorts of stores and banks etc. in the high street. In this way the high street becomes an abstraction or generalised, rather than particular to a given town; it is part of a wider pattern, not individual. (see David Cunningham in Radical Philosophy 133, Sept/Oct. 2005, 'Metropolis and Urban Form')
A further objection is that space seems to take on a life of its own rather than being linked to, structured by the activities that produce it as an on-going dynamic flux, thus it becomes a thing rather than a shaping process or relation.
David Harvey- many of these ideas have been taken up by the urban geographer, David Harvey. He uses them in an article ‘Space as a keyword’ in the book David Harvey: a Critical Reader (edited by Castree & Gregory)
3 types of space- physical, social and representational
Traditional view- space is empty and fixed by its physical boundaries. This idea of space is associated with the classical physics of Newton as the space within which bodies move. As such Lefebvre, 1994 Prod. of Space (p.169) describes it as a view of space as being substantial, absolutely fixed and empty. As against this view Liebniz argued with/against Newton that space was relational i.e. it could only be grasped in terms of what it related to what e.g. the spaces of urban life exist relationally in the sense that they are linked aspects of a single division of labour- industry, finance, consumption, leisure, administration are all interdependent spaces of urban life.
This idea of space is of a space that doesn’t exist separately from the things (as above) that occupy it. (ibid., pp.169-70). All activities nevertheless also exist in physical environments (absolute space) at the same time. Relational (social) space can be reduced by speeding up the connections between different activities e.g. via use of the Internet or faster modes of travel (see below on this).
For Lefebvre (The Urban Revolution) space in modern capitalism is often determined by property values: this determines who lives where- a relationality of class residential spaces. Lefebvresees this as an abstract relationality of money values (commodity relations).
How these types of space come together
Our own experience of space is as an amalgam of these three pure types and for Lefebvre the experiential dimension is key to everything else.Lefebvre- the three types of space are thus overlaid or organised by social constructions of space which we experience as ’lived space’. In other words, lived spaces are also spaces of representation in that they concern how we symbolise space, what meaning it has for us. For example, the built environment of the city is a physical space which has social spaces such as physically-based car parks and cathedrals which have a certain meaning for us. Depending on the construction of space so we experience it and imagine/represent it. Cities dominated by car parks are experienced and symbolised differently from those say, dominated by cathedrals.
Space becomes increasingly abstract as the city/urban centres develop: there are more specialised spaces in such cities- industrial, administrative, financial spaces/places for instance. Spaces are increasingly dominated by rental values and their consequence- property developers. The latter often control urban development
Space and time are interlinked: our sense of space is linked to the time it takes to move across it. Hence the horse, car, train or plane provide different senses or constructions of space.
Globalisation produces a compression of space as the Internet and global interconnectedness make the world seem smaller: producing a different kind of space i.e. smaller space. Hence spaces must be thought of relationally -the space of walking compared to the space of the jet plane etc.
Space is about power relations- territoriality, for example.
Space is heterogeneous- broken up into places of specialised activities – activity spaces (Massey)
Spaces have their own time or rhythms of development
E.g. Milton Keynes shopping centre contains the spaces of leisure (strolling, gathering, meeting, passing the time of day), the spaces of consumption (shopping times) and the space of calendrical time as it is oriented to the high point of the summer sun (summer solstice). The space-time rhythms of urban developers also intrude in shop rentals and their attempts to control public access to the shopping centre (see Owen Hatherley in Maev Kennedy: 'Milton Keynes shopping centre becomes Grade 11 listed building', Guardian, 16th July, 2010 and his A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain
Representational spaces- these are the activity spaces occupied/produced by those who develop ideas in the form of symbols, images, concepts, theories…for example anthropologists, architects, sociologists, advertisers, artists, journalists and so on
Representations of space- products of the imagination which has lived through the experience of particular relational activities e.g. travelling from A to B, working with other professions, trades which provide a sense of relative nature of work/skills etc. and their different rhythms/routines of life
Criticism of Lefebvre- whilst he sees property values as abstract rather than real critics have argued that money and property values, although abstractions from everyday life in that they don’t recognise individual, personal or intrinsic worth of things but only their market value, are nevertheless real in that they determine where we can live, what we can buy etc. i.e. they are real abstractions. For example, towns and cities have tended to become standardised with the same sorts of stores and banks etc. in the high street. In this way the high street becomes an abstraction or generalised, rather than particular to a given town; it is part of a wider pattern, not individual. (see David Cunningham in Radical Philosophy 133, Sept/Oct. 2005, 'Metropolis and Urban Form')
A further objection is that space seems to take on a life of its own rather than being linked to, structured by the activities that produce it as an on-going dynamic flux, thus it becomes a thing rather than a shaping process or relation.
David Harvey- many of these ideas have been taken up by the urban geographer, David Harvey. He uses them in an article ‘Space as a keyword’ in the book David Harvey: a Critical Reader (edited by Castree & Gregory)
posted by Howard Feather at 2:01 PM
0 comments
