A Marx for Our Time: Henri Lefebvre and the Production of Space

Author(s): M. Gottdiener
Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 129-134
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/201984
Accessed: 15-08-2014 01:01 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 content
in 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 support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:01:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A Marx for Our Time: Henri Lefebvreand
The Production of Space
M. GOTTDIENER
University of California, Riverside

Henri Lefebvre, who died last year at an age between 86 to 89 (the records aren't clear),
was perhaps the greatest Marxian thinker since Marx, and certainly one of the greatest
philosophers of our time. Sociologists can appreciate his significance by realizing that
what they know of Marx's work itself is quite limited. The latter has been homogenized
and simplified by generations of textbook writing and misleading scholarship.' To under-
stand Marx it is necessary first to know how he thought and analyzed social phenomena,
rather than what he said. By this I mean an understanding of the powerful dialectical
schema that Marx developed in his critique of both Hegel and Fichte.2 Lefebvre was one
of the very few analysts of society who really knew how Marx thought, and it is indicative
that one of his first books was on Marxian dialectics (Lefebvre 1939).3 This work contains
many of the themes that Lefebvre was to develop later.
In 1974 Lefebvre published a monumental book, The Production of Space, which has
just appeared in translation (1991) and which the publisher claims to be "his major
philosophical work." I would rank another work, his three-part book The Critique of
Everyday Life (which is being translated only now), as his most significant, but the book
on space must rank a close second. Yet Lefebvre also has made important contributions
to the theory of the state (a four-volume masterpiece), to the sociology of the arts, to
poststructuralism, to existentialism, to scholarship on Descartes, Pascal, Nietzsche (as
early as 1939), and Lukacs, among other thinkers, and to the theory of modernity/
postmodernity.4 What I like most about Lefebvre is how he engaged his time. He did not
write in isolation, but lived the life of a Parisian intellectual and participated in lively
debates with others about the nature of Marxism, political action, the intellectual foun-
dations of structuralism, poststructuralism, postmodernity, and (reaching back) existen-
tialism. Consequently he took the trouble both to read the work of others and to attempt
a dialogue in his writing-a rarity among American academics. When reading Lefebvre,
one can find all sorts of sometimes veiled, sometimes explicit references to the current
ideas and books in the Parisian milieu, which may escape the uninformed reader.5

Here I have in mind not only the simplistic introductorytexts, which focus almost exclusively on the concept
of class and on Marx's "evolutionary"theory of history, but also the misleading and quite limited variationson
"conflicttheory,"which take conflict, a non-specified,naturallyoccurringphenomenon,and imputeit to Marxian
historicalanalysis as the phenomenalcore.
2 Some
sociologists believe that the dialectic involves thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In fact, this mode of
thinkingbelongs to Fichte and has nothing to do with Marx's dialectic. Marx's approachderives from Hegel's
notion of the phenomenon, the negation, and the negation of the negation, but he understandsthis movement
according to both the ontological position that all phenomena possess a base in the material world and the
epistemologicalposition that movement across the dialecticalmomentis understoodthroughthe relationbetween
deep structureand surface level; This position also is adoptedby realist theoreticians(Bhaskar1979).
3 Lefebvre published 66 books. He startedaroundthe age of 30 and publishedsome of his
very best writing,
25 books, after the age of 65!
4 A complete bibliographyappearsat the end of Production of Space ([1974] 1991).
5
My favorite aside appearedin The Survival of Capitalism ([1973] 1974), where Lefebvre summarizedhis
response to Althusser's ponderousschema as follows: "If you can understandit, good luck to you."

Sociological Theory 11:1 March 1993

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:01:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
I welcome the appearancein translationof The Productionof Space,6 but it is not clear
how it will be received by the new urbangeographersand by the sociologists who take
less sophisticatedapproaches,such as humanecology or the ideas in the much-publicized
book by Logan and Molotch (1987). Both Manuel Castells and David Harvey, often
claimed by urbaniststo be the seminal thinkersof the new urbanism,owe an immense,
unacknowledgeddebt to Lefebvre. The latter,by writinga series of six books on urbanism
beginning in 1968, deserves the title of progenitor. Most important,both Castells and
Harveydeveloped several of Lefebvre's ideas which appearedbefore the culminating1974
work on space, and which do not have the benefit of the polished, completed arguments.7
In Dialectical Materialism([1939] 1968) Lefebvre analyzedMarxianpolitical economy
at a time when he was breaking with Stalinism and the CommunistParty. No doubt he
was reactingto dogmatismand orthodoxy(as well as to Stalin's politics), and this reaction
was reflected in a critical reading of Marx's Capital. Lefebvre noted that the latter work
was essentially about time-the extraction and circulation of surplus value. Lefebvre
believed that Marxianpolitical economy neglected the materialaspect of production:the
world of commodities existed in space as well as time. In 1939 he announcedthat the
dialectic was spatial as well as temporal, and that this realizationput Marx's system in a
new light. Lefebvre went literally to the materialdimensionof dialectics. In his view, the
productionactivity of capitalism resulted in a space-that is, a materiality.Furthermore,
this "space"possessed its own dialectical moment. Like the other categories of Marxian
thought-money, labor power-it was a concrete abstraction. That is, space was both a
material product of social relations (the concrete) and a manifestation of relations, a
relation itself (the abstract). It was as much a part of social relations as was time. In
short, by applying Marxianthoughtto Marx, Lefebvre arrivedat insights that transcended
Marxianpolitical economy and pointed away from dogma. He needed the next 30 years
to work out the implications of these early revelations.
The Productionof Space is a complex work, at once historical,philosophical, semiotic,
and Marxist. It was written at a time when both Althusserianismand deconstructionism
were salient, and there are many asides to thinkers who follow these persuasions. It is
also a mature work, in which Lefebvre's command of his dialectical thinking is quite
masterful. In Fichtean dialectics and in much deconstructionistor structuralistthought,
analytical categories are perceived as oppositions or antinomies. Lefebvre wants nothing
to do with this Manichean view because it usually results in static contrasts. Marx's
dialectical moments were flowing, manifold, and complex, especially with regardto "the
negation," a concept that I believe only Adorno and Lefebvre have really understood.
According to Lefebvre, dialectical moments are expressed as "triplicite"-as three terms,
not two. The third term instantly deconstructsstatic oppositions or dualisms, and adds a
fluid dimension to social process.8

6 My book The Social Production of Urban Space (1985) was inspired directly by Lefebvre. It is a critical

commentaryon the writings of others, such as Castells and Harvey, in this light because of their reductionism
and their neglect of the concept "space," which is at once semiotic, political, and economic.
7 I can summarizethe positions briefly as follows: Harvey used the writings of Lefebvre that appearedin the
late 1960s, before Lefebvre developed the more maturenotion of "space,"and made a contributionby system-
aticallyapplyingthe categoriesof political economy to urbanphenomena.But thereinalso lies Harvey'seconomic
reductionism.Castells wrote a critique of Lefebvre's writings from the 1960s, using Althusserianstructuralism,
and presented an approachto urban social movements that was more comprehensivethan Lefebvre's. Since
then, however, none of Castells's work has had much to do with "space," and lately he has lapsed into
technological reductionism. In sum, it is precisely by remainingtrue to Lefebvre's project, as outlined in the
book on space, that we avoid all forms of reductionismin the analysis of urban phenomena (see Gottdiener
1985; Gottdienerand Lagopoulos 1986).
8 Several
years ago, for example, some theorists discussed the "micro/macro"split in social analysis. This
simple scheme can be deconstructedinstantlyby the additionof a thirdterm, such as the "meso"level of society,
and thereby can acquire greatercomplexity.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:01:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LEFEBVREAND THE PRODUCTIONOF SPACE 131
The most important"triple"concerns graspingthe importanceof space accordingto its
manifestationsas perceived, conceived, and lived. Ever since his early breakwith orthodox
Marxism, Lefebvre had been concernedwith avoidingreductionisteconomism. This triple
is meant to convey that space has a complex characterand enters social relations at all
levels. It is at once a physical environmentthat can be perceived; a semiotic abstraction
that informs both how ordinary people negotiate space (the mental maps studied by
geographers)and the space of corporations,planners,politicians, and the like; and, finally,
a mediumthroughwhich the body lives out its life in interactionwith otherbodies. Social
relationsalso are spatial relations;we cannot talk about the one without the other.9
In working with this triple relation, Lefebvre attemptsto avoid reductionism,whether
it is of the economistic (Marxist) or the idealist (deconstructionist)kind. He proposes a
unitarytheory of space that ties together the physical, the mental, and the social. Devel-
oping this generalizedapproachto space even further,Lefebvreintroducesa second triple
thatamplifiesthe first. Space is simultaneouslya spatialpractice (an externalized,material
environment),a representationof space (a conceptualmodel used to direct practice), and
a space of representation(the lived social relationof users to the environment).
In much of the early part of his book, Lefebvre applies this triple distinction to the
analysis of different environments. His approachcombines geographical, historical, and
semiotic analysis, thereby avoiding reductionism. He focuses on how various societies
have particularizedspace in both form and meaning over time. Lefebvre accomplishes
this task by considering the distinction between abstract space and social space. Abstract
space is constituted by the intersection of knowledge and power. It is the hierarchical
space that is pertinentto those who wish to control social organization,such as political
rulers, economic interests, and planners. Social space, in contrast, arises from practice-
the everyday lived experience that is externalizedand materializedthroughaction by all
members of society, even the rulers. Persons working from the model of abstractspace
continuallytry to reign in and control the social space of everyday life, with its constant
changes, whereas social space always transcends conceived boundaries and regulated
forms.
Finally, both abstractand social space involve the triplicite:mentalimaging, perceptions
of built forms, and social practice. In particular,the conception of space always precedes
spatial practice for humans;That is, mental projection, or the semiotic model of space,
and physical construction, or extemalization, are always related. Using these concepts,
Lefebvre walks the reader through western Europeanhistory, attemptingto show how
certain isolated changes in the triple conjunctureof space actually involved qualitative
historical movements. Greek space, for example, is ruled by a cosmic, abstractsense of
religion and geometry. Rome, in contrast, is sullied by the practice of power; space is
edified by humans themselves. Thus, says Lefebvre, the Greek agora (an abstractspace)
is empty and is proportioneduniformlyby the golden mean, so that the Greeks can meet
there and do what they will in unity with the cosmos. "The Roman Forum, on the other
hand, is full of objects" (1991, p. 275).
This part of the text, where Lefebvre applies his approachto history, lacks the strong
comparativeunderstandingof Max Weber or FerdinandBraudel;neitherdoes it measure
up to the way in which some currentgeographersmight undertakean historical analysis
of space. It also seems somewhat diffuse and nonsystematized as semiotic analysis,
comparedto more recent attemptsat defininga semiotic approachto space.10To his credit,

9 This insight was adoptedby Giddens and Jameson, among others.

10 Lefebvre's book is infused with urban semiotics. For example, he mentions the work of Lagopoulos in
passing (but see Gottdienerand Lagopoulos 1986).

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:01:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132 SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
Lefebvre never suggests that there is some "evolutionary"principle altering the human-
space relation, only that this relation changes according to differences in social organi-
zation. In sum, his contributionlies in the balanced, integratedanalysis that ties together
semiotics, political relations, and economic relations ratherthan solely in plumbing the
depths of historical analysis.
In the latter part of the book, beginning with Chapter5, Lefebvre addressescapitalism
and the maturingindustrial society, and here his work shines. He introduces his main
theoreticalconcept, "theproductionof space." Every mode of social organizationproduces
an environmentthat is a consequence of the social relationsit possesses. In addition, by
producing a space according to its own nature, a society not only materializes into
distinctive built forms, but also reproduces itself. The concept "productionof space"
means what Giddens calls the "dualityof structure.""That is, space is both a medium of
social relationsand a materialproductthat can affect social relations.This dialectical idea
is a major tenet of the "new urbansociology."
The productionof space under capitalism involves the fragmentationand homogeniza-
tion of space, just as is the case with othercommodities"underthe law of the reproducible
and the repetitive"(1991, p. 375). Small wondernew suburbsall look the same. Lefebvre
introduceshis approachinto Marxianpolitical economy, and at this point he reaches the
core of his theory:"All Marxistconcepts are takento a higherlevel without any one stage
in theory disappearing.The reconsiderationof Marxist concepts develops optimally by
taking account fully of space" (p. 342). By appreciatingspace, by taking account of it
explicitly, we pass beyond Marxian political economy without abandoningthe critical
approachto capitalismthat Marx introduced.
For example, Lefebvrereturnsto the Marxof Capital and remindsus of a crucialpoint:
this book was only one part of a larger project (see The Grundrisse).12 Marx's analysis
of capitalismin the abstractwas based on the contrastbetween abstractlabor and capital,
accordingto a "binary"dialectical schema that involved oppositionssuch as wages-profits,
worker-capitalist,and so on. Yet in the historicalconditions of capitalism's emergence a
thirdelement, the land, also was presentand supporteda separateclass in the early stages
of growth. Marx finally introduces this third term at the end of Capital, and calls its
relationto the other basic units of society the "trinityformula."Lefebvre likes this notion
of the trinity because it resonates with his dialectics, and he seizes on it as a way of
upgradingMarxianpolitical economy.
According to Lefebvre, land and its advancedcapitalistrelationsof production,which
he calls "real estate," constitute a second circuit of capital, even though a separateclass
of landowners no longer exists. That is, the channeling of money, the constructionof
housing, the developmentof space, financing, and speculationin land constitutea second
means of acquiring wealth that is relatively independentof the "first"circuit, industrial
production.Furthermore,throughan extendeddiscussion, Lefebvreshows thatthis second
circuit is one of the fundamentalforces of society and a source of surplusvalue creation.
Finally, he argues effectively that it has a logic of its own, even though it is related to
the primarycircuit. In short, the Marxiananalysis of capitalism,by accountingfor space,
will never be the same again.13 Furthermore,these concepts of Lefebvre's became the
basis for "the new urbansociology," which continues to expand its influence in the field.
n Giddens uses this concept in his writings but seems to be unawarethat Lefebvre developed it.
12
As Marxist scholars know, The Grundrisse(Marx [1939] 1973), not Capital, is the comprehensivework.
It is also the best place to observe Marx's masteryof dialectics.
13 These ideas
already have been put into practice. Harvey used the circuit model of capitalism with much
influence among geographers, although he compounded and altered it. Some urbanists, such as Logan and
Molotch (1987), suggest fallaciously that the separateclass of landownersstill exists, and their analysis suffers
accordingly. Gottdiener (1985, 1987) has elaboratedfurtheron Lefebvre's political economy of space. Many

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:01:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LEFEBVREAND THE PRODUCTIONOF SPACE 133
Whenever I read Lefebvre I am reminded of Barthes's phrase "the pleasures of the
text," because he is a joy to read. In a virtuoso display of dialectical reasoning, for
example, he discusses how the advanceof capitalistindustrializationsuperimposesabstract
space, the quantifiedspace, everywhere. The qualitativeaspect of space, however, cannot
be absorbedby this movement. "It re-emergeswhen the 'spaces of consumption'become
the 'consumption of space"' (1991, p. 352). When does this occur? In tourism, for
example, "when people seek a qualitative space-sun, snow, the sea" (1991, p. 352);
when capitalism transformsthe circulationof commoditiesfor people into the circulation
of people throughcommodifiedplaces.
At anotherpoint in the text, Lefebvre's dialectic penetratesto the heartof an important
matterand displays insights that transcendthe narrowview of political economy. In the
past, he suggests, commodities themselves were scarce but resources were abundant.
Political economy was founded on asceticism-the necessity of making choices under
scarcity. Today, in contrast, there is an abundance of commodities, but our natural
resources have become scarce. "This dialectical movement has never been analyzed in
itself-the focus on pollution, the environment,noise, exhaustionof resourcesjust masks
it" (1991, p. 376). With this insight the book becomes a great work of environmentalism.
According to Lefebvre, the individual aspects of environmentaldecay, such as racist,
economic, or chemical issues, are not of most concern. Rather, we must focus on the
productionof space. In this case, capitalist industrializationhas destroyed nature and is
replacing it with a "second nature." The balance between the organic and the human
environmentis disappearingacross the globe because of the productionand extension of
a second nature-the concrete, materialworld of organizedsociety (1991, pp. 343-45).
That is the heart of the matter.
Finally, Lefebvre makes a brilliantcontributionto our understandingof the state. His
thinkingis particularlypertinentwhen he analyzes the relationbetween power and space,
a characteristicthat is wholly ignoredby the new urbangeographers,among others. Space
is not only homogenized and fragmentedbut also hierarchicaland a frameworkof power.
Lefebvre's discussion of the relationshipbetween the state and space is inspirational.Now
that the work is available in translation,I wonder whether,or how soon, it will influence
studies on the state, especially the historicalrole of state regulationthroughspatialmeans.
Lefebvre would not be a critical theoristif he did not leave us with a liberatoryposition
that we could adopt after his extended philosophicaldiscussion. Social change, according
to Lefebvre, cannot occur in a planned way without the productionof a changed space.
As he suggests, the Russian revolution failed precisely when the drive to create a new,
revolutionaryspace, such as that implicit in the work of the Russian constructivists,also
failed. To change life means to change space as well. Before the appearanceof this book
Lefebvre expressed this idea as "the right to the city;" along with other aspects of his
thought, it was highly influentialamong studentsduringthe events of May 1968 in France.
The transformationof social relations, Lefebvre believes, means a transformationof
sociospatial relations, a productionof a new, liberatoryspace.
In conclusion, I wish to make some observations about the translationby Donald
Nicholson-Smith. On the whole he has done a masterfuljob. In places he has even made
the citations more explicit. The translatorhas been very careful to preserve the intent of
Lefebvre's ideas. For example, when describing the changes in Roman civilization,

other urbanistsand, more recently, postmodernscholars, have incorporatedthe presence of a relatively auton-
omous spatial domain into their analyses. Jameson, for example, who says a great deal about space and its
importanceto postmodernthinking, was influenced greatly by Lefebvre. Feagin (1988) has written a brilliant
analysis of Houston, using this perspective. A new textbook on urbansociology soon will be published as well
(Gottdienerforthcoming).

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:01:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Lefebvre uses an opposition-"crypt/decrypt"-to explain certain developments in the
relation to space. There is no English word "decrypt";yet the translatorpreserves it in
orderto follow the literal meaning of Lefebvre's analysis.
As in all translations,however, some aspects of the original are lost. Nicholson-Smith
tends to use sophisticatedsynonyms. One of the pleasuresof readingLefebvre, however,
comes from appreciatinghis exquisite use of language;he says things directly and clearly
but not simplistically. Some of this wonderfuluse of words is lost. Also, Lefebvre is in
the habit of making puns, and I'm afraidthe translatormissed these. Finally, the edition
by Blackwell Publishers includes an afterwordby David Harvey. Consideringhow little
Lefebvre's influence has been acknowledgedin the past, I found this inclusion of Harvey
in the project both ironic and, quite simply, just anotherexample of appropriation.

REFERENCES
Bhaskar,Roy. 1979. A Realist Theoryof Science. Leeds: UK Book Publishing.
Feagin, Joe R. 1988. Houston: Free EnterpriseCity. New Brunswick:RutgersUniversity Press.
Gottdiener,M. 1985. The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1987. "Space as a Force of Production."InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research 11(3):
405-17.
Forthcoming.The New Urban Sociology. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Gottdiener,M. and A. Lagopoulos. 1986. The City and the Sign. New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Lefebvre, Henri. (1939) 1968. Dialectical Materialism. London:JonathanCape, 1968.
(1973) 1974. The Survival of Capitalism. London:Allison & Busby.
[1974] 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Logan, John and Harvey Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Marx, Karl. (1939) 1973. The Grundrisse. New York:Vintage.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:01:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions