Name: Andrew Wallis.
Subject: MA in American and Canadian Studies.
Course Module: Guided Reading
Tutor: Dr. Liam Kennedy
Critique ue of Henri Henri Lefe Lefebv bvre re's 's Spatial Spatial Theor Theorie iess in his his The Produc Productio tion n Of Essay Title: Title: A Critiq Space.
Date: 22 January 1996.
2
A Critique of Henri Lefebvre's Spatial Theories in his The Production Of Space. Space .
Published in 1974 (though not translated into English until 1991), Henri Lefebvre's influential text The Production Of Space, can be seen to be the primary piece of writing that reintroduced spatial theories to the world of academia. Originating from a Western Marxist background, Lefebvre Lefebvre embellis embellishes hes his thesis with the disciplines disciplines of philosophy and history, history, continually continually evoking the concepts of Marx and Hegel. Although he uses these teachings to good effect when examining how space is produced in a capitalist society, and through the history of Ancient Greece and Rome, I shall not be concentrating upon them in this essay. The reason for this exclusion, is that I feel the acute detail he examines these with, has a tendency to position a veil over his theories concerning space, diverting the reader from notions of spatiality towards a Marxist criticism of capitalism. Yet, it is because of his political persuasion that he is able to explic explicitly itly witnes witnesss the producti production on of capitalist capitalist space, space, and its inher inherent ent comple complexiti xities es and contradictions.
Instead of looking at the history and philosophy of space, I shall attempt an analysis and critique of Lefebvre's key concepts and thoughts (though many of his proposals are difficult to argue against). This shall be done by looking at his discussions that move from absolute space to abstrac abstractt space space,, from from contra contradic dictor tory y space space to the the com commodi modifi ficat catio ion n of this this space space,, an explanat explanation ion of how how produce produced d space is simultan simultaneou eously sly homo homoge genou nouss and fragment fragmented, ed, and concluding with a truth, or science of space. This should highlight some of Lefebvre's complex (sometimes confusing) ideas on why there is a need to analyse the production of mental, social, and physical space to reach a 'truth of space'.
Early on in his work, Lefebvre asserts that 'social space is a social product' 1. If one is to make sense of this statement , one is required to examine what that production process is. Lefebvre sees this process as being one conducted over time, that institutional or state powers 'produce' a space, a space that was once deemed to be 'empty'. It is through this time consuming operation that the dominant power is able to assert its hierarchical position and autonomy over this space, yet will 'fail to master it completely' 2. This is all very well well and straight forward, yet this space, as an instrument of power, has the effect of producing and reproducing social spaces in a variety of complex ways.
Withi Within n the producti production on of a social social space, space, dialect dialectical ical relation relationshi ships ps emer emerge ge that cause the statement 'social space is a social product' to be not only too simplistic, but also problematic. Lefebvre observes a dialectic emerging in this situation, that being the relationship between 1 2
Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994), p.26. Ibid. p.26.
3
'social relations of reproduction' (this basically being the family sect), and 'the relations of production'
3
(the divisio division n of labour labour and its related related class class system system). ). These These two interlo interlocki cking ng
relations form a dialectic, where each determines and influences the other, helping to produce a social space. Yet, when this dialectic is positioned within a 'neo-capitalist' framework, Lefebvre argues that this duality is insufficient. What is required, he says, is 'a conceptual triad'
4
with
which to work from..
A problem when looking at the production of space, is that it contains many contradictions that are inseparable from one another. The 'conceptual triad' that Lefebvre introduces forms the basis for ways to examine this production; as David Harvey comments, it demonstrates 'a dramatic tension through which the history of spatial practices can be read' 5. This triad that runs through through Lefebvr Lefebvre's e's essay essay (althoug (although h contin continually ually changi changing ng form), form), consist consistss of spatial practice, representations representations of space, and representational representational space. Spatial S patial practice pr actice incorporates not only only the manner manner society society produces produces space, space, but also the way space produces produces society society,, thus supporting the statement mentioned above. To illustrate this, Lefebvre uses the networks of roads. roads. This 'urban reality' reality'
6
is given given a space produced produced by society society to maintain maintain order order and
cohesiveness. Yet it is also a space that is able to determine the power the hegemonic order has over society, and is able to produce 'daily reality' 7. It is a dialectical relationship that will be shown later to have many contradictions; it is, however, suffice to say at this junction that it is the space of the experienced.
The crux crux of the the triad triad emer emerge gess when when look lookin ing g at its two two other other aspec aspects. ts. Lefe Lefebv bvre re sees sees a representation of space as being a conceptualised space, a space that relates its production 'to knowledge, to signs, to codes' 8. A space needs to be given codes of language or semiotics to obtain a spatial perception: what Lefebvre views as being essential for a conception of the production of space. Correspondingly, this space is also imaginary and lived, which takes the form of representational space. These spaces are, according to Harvey, 'mental inventions...that imagine imagine new meanings meanings or possibilities possibilities for spatial practices' 9, whilst also performing an active role in the lived performance of that space. It is this performance of the lived experience that can (though not always) produce a space, or spaces, via the imaginary, or via the use of a pre-existing space. The relationship between representations of space and representational space is a confusing one, for when looking at the history of space from a contemporary spatial perspective, one already is possessed with the knowledge (connaissance) with which to understand and recognise it. A conceptualised and/or 3
Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri Ibid. p.33. 5 Harvey, David 6 Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri 7 Ibid. p.38. 8 Ibid. p.33. 9 Harvey, David -
- The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publisher, Oxford, 1994), p.32.
4
The Condition Of Postmodernity (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1990), p.219. - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994), p.38.
The Condition Of Postmodernity (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1990), p.218-19.
4
imagined space of history is already represented in the present, and thus cannot be perceived but only represented through analysis and hindsight. Yet, Lefebvre argues that the relationship between these two representations can be understood if one views the producers of space (the architect, the government) as working with representations of space, for they conceive it, whilst the 'users', hence society, 'experience whatever was imposed upon them'
, and work with
10
representational space. It is a complex triad, especially when positioned in relation to the different perspectives of social space, and from the position of one who already acknowledges that these spaces are present and already produced. It does however, provide one with the termino terminolog logy y and framewo framework rk with with which which to fully fully illustrate illustrate the contradi contradictio ctions ns of spatial spatial production.
Having recognised this triad, of the ways space can be seen to be produced, one can move towards a deeper analysis of the way society experienced a shift from absolute space - a 'natural' space like rivers and fields that possessed codes to represent its significance; towards an abstract social space. This is the space where political powers and forces have restructured or reproduced this 'natural' space to work in terms of the construction of the social labour force, something that Lefebvre sees as often being demonstrated through violence. He discusses this abstract social space in much depth with regards to the class system, the emergence of a new capitalist space, the way language becomes knowledge, and the manner artists performed its representational space. Lefebvre is at his strength though, when he reveals the dichotomies and dialectics represented within this social space, and it is these that need attention.
Social space is produced in a variety of ways, all of which relate to each other. I shall attempt (some may say crudely) to briefly encapsulate the principle dialectics Lefebvre proposes, for this shall hopefully make things clearer later on. The relationship between use value and exchange value has been heavily documented in terms of the economic, yet in social space it takes on a variety of disguises. The use value of space can be seen to be the manner space is prod produc uced ed in terms terms of labour labour outpu output, t, the the valu valuee it hold holdss for for indi indivi vidua duals, ls, and and its 'natura 'natural' l' resources. These clearly have a relationship with the exchange value, for Lefebvre sees these spaces as becoming commodities in a capitalist society, obtaining a language allowing it to have a content, and thus value. In the market place, this space is produced 'via money, and via labour' 11, having an economic, as well as political and social value placed upon it. Its use value has determined its exchange value, which conversely determines its use. This dialectic takes its form in the relationship of 'individual versus social, divided versus global', and cannot be seen as homogenous or fixed, for it is continually volatile to the production and reproduction of that social space.
10 11
Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994), p.43. Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994), p.100.
5
Anothe Anotherr dialec dialectic tic Lefebvr Lefebvree sees sees as occurrin occurring g in social social space space is betwe between en the demand demand and command of space. This, he argues, is 'a historical problem'
12
, for the production of space
needs to have obtained a knowledge of this relationship. The hegemonic powers that command the production of a space have to pay attention to its demand, and to the distinction between material material (stone (stone and wood) wood) and materie materiell (hamme (hammers rs and drills) drills),, for these these apparently apparently dictate dictate whether or not that space will survive its production. However, within this dialectic others emerge, such as between the centre and the periphery (who demands and commands the centre for example), and between dominated and appropriated space. What can be deduced here, is that the analysis of a produced space is by no means simple. One cannot say that social space is determined merely by use value and exchange value, for this would be too narrow, and would exclude what influences that dialectic and so on. However, these dialectical relationships are vital to the analysis, yet what is also needed for this social space to become productive and reproductive, is a language.
Lefebvre sees space obtaining markings and signs, not as a necessity, but as a command of power. These signs can be explicit, as in erected boundaries, or can be ideological in terms of do's and don'ts. Signs dictate within social space what to do, where to go, and how to behave, for they are embedded in the notion of power. Lefebvre views this to be a positive aspect, in that signs are able to produce socio-spatial mobility and interaction; yet he also sees problems in giving space a language, arguing that spaces are not receptable to readability. By this he means that 'the reading of space...comes last in the genesis of space itself'
. It is only when
13
space is produced and is the producer that it is able to have a language of semiotics placed upon it; for, as I see it, a reading of social space depends upon the production of that space before any analysis of the dialectics mentioned above can be made.
It seems that Lefebvre Lefebvre argues for and against this reading of space, because his concern concern at this stage, is with how space is produced, when it does not have a strict code or language of power. Ironical Ironically ly,, what what he is doing doing is givin giving g this productio production n a languag language, e, and thus seem seemss to be contradicting himself. It is difficult to disagree with Lefebvre's discussion of the semiotics of space, for a produced space needs to be read in order to grasp a knowledge of its operations and control of society, the society of everyday life. It would be interesting however, if one could position Lefebvre's ideas alongside Fredric Jameson's discussion of the Bonaventure Hotel, in which he finds it almost impossible to assign that space a language because of it repetition and distortion of traditional spatial conceptions.
Now that a language has been established regarding the production of space, one needs to return to another dialectic proposed by Lefebvre. This is the concept of space being both 12 13
Ibid. p.116. Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994), p.143.
6
dominated and appropriated. He argues that space is dominated via the available technology transforming it, and 'in the modern world, instances of such spaces are legion'
14
. It can be seen
that possibly the majority of spaces in the modern western world are dominated, for one only needs to look at the vertical buildings of New York to see how that urban space is positively and negatively dominated. But for this space of New York to obtain its full meaning it needs to be appropriated. The domineering vertical space of New York becomes appropriated when it enters everyday life, or the social sphere; for it is at this stage that certain social groups or institutions give it meaning or codes of power. The Empire State building not only dominates the space it occupies, but it has obtained its full significance of representing wealth, power, and advancement by being appropriated
15
. Lefebvre posits a basic example of this dialectic as
being the distinction between the space of the public and that of the private. Public spaces such as roads or parks, he suggests, are often established and dominated by the hegemonic social order, whilst also performing a role in the dialectics previously mentioned, such as use and exchange value. The domination of these spaces is insufficient until they are appropriated by society. The private space of homes is an example Lefebvre shows as being appropriated. Without Without inhabitants, homes are merely merely dominated, dominated, they become become appropriated when when human subjects occupy that space. This may be seen as a weak example, for it does not distinguish the differences clearly. Yet it seems, that this is exactly Lefebvre's objective, for it reverts back to the notion that without a language there could be no concept of the dialectic of domination and appropriation, one would be unable to analyse how that space is produced within the social, and it is from this language that one can examine the differences.
What I have been discussing so far is Lefebvre's opinions on social space as absolute space, where one needs to understand its semiology, and must recognise that this space cannot be confined confined to dualities, dualities, for it encompasses encompasses many different different relationships relationships and representations. representations. Lefebvre argues that a transformation occured in this absolute space, 'a highly activated space '1 6
, when it became dominated and appropriated during the middle ages forming the space of
commercial towns, instead of referring to religious or political sites (as was the case of the absolute space in Ancient Greece). This new space of commodities and accumulation fully emerged during the sixteenth century, with the advent of the town (the centre) becoming more powerfu powerfull in the political political econo economy my than the traditional traditional source source of wealth, wealth, that being being the agricultural countryside (the periphery). Lefebvre suggests that what occurred during this time, was that the urban centre, centre, the town, town, emerg emerged ed as a social social space having having the political political and economic power with which to distribute commodities produced on the periphery, to whatever space that power desired. This capitalist space of the town developed to occupy even greater
14
Ibid. p.164. An example of this could be the classic movie King movie King Kong , in which the Empire State building has been appropriated by the movie to represent success and wealth dominating the United States. 16 Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994), p.236. 15
7
space over the years. Lefebvre sees this as emerging through its representational, produced, and productive violence, bound up with the economic, becoming, what he terms, abstract space.
This established abstract space emerged from the dominating political force of violence, a force that attempted to eliminate difference to produce a space that at 'first...appears homogenous'
.
17
Lefebvre observes problems when examining this supposedly stable and comprehensible spatial abstraction, and proposes that there is another triad in operation in this space. This triad of abstract space consists consists of, what what he terms, 'forman 'formants': ts': the geometri geometricc formant, formant, the optical formant, and the phallic formant; two of which help to position what I have been discussing in a clearer light.
The geom geometric etric formant formant is a represe representati ntation on of space that appears appears to be homo homoge geno nous us when when operating in the social realm, yet reduces 'the 'real'...to a 'plan' existing in a void'
18
, or rather it
reduces space to a state where it has the illusion of representing homogeneity. This is similar to what is at work in the optical formant. According to Lefebvre, this aspect is a situation where the visualisation of the spectacle and of the written word 'become essential'
19
. The visual is
apparently dominant in this abstract space, in that what is seen, or what signs are seen, prevail over the other bodily senses (what better example of this than the space of the cinema or the television?). This visualisation correspondingly produces social space as being a 'purely visual space', whereby what 'is merely seen is reduced to an image'
20
. The final formant Lefebvre
proposes is that of the phallic. This, to me, contains little relevance when looking at urban space, and thus appears to be fairly nonsensical. Lefebvre associates the dominance a political power has over this abstract space, that being its tool of violence, as having phallic importance over spatial practice. This pseudo-psych pseudo-psycholog ological ical approach a pproach Lefebvre occasionally occasionally falls into during his essay, essay, is in my opinion the weakness weakness of his theories, theories, for it positions space out of its social urban structure, into the (relevant, but not here) world of Freud and Jung.
Despite Despite my disagreem disagreement ent with with Lefebvr Lefebvre's e's phallic phallic formant, formant, it can be seen seen that these these three three formants do constitute an abstract space; a space whose use value is one of political aims and objectives, and whose exchange value is that of a commodity. It is also a space that is reflective of the power sought by the establishment. How this is done will be illustrated shortly, yet at the moment this model does not inform us much about the practice of everyday life operating within this space. Lefebvre argues that one needs to go beyond this reflective power of abstract space, to be able to witness abstract space's contents, its signs, and its lived space.
17
Ibid. p.285. Ibid. p.287. 19 Ibid. p.286. 20 Ibid. p.286. 18
8
If this model of abstract space is seen to be one of homogeneity - because its surface images act as a spatial veil through which the violence of politics is produced and sought; Lefebvre asserts that it is simultaneously fragmented. This fragmentation occurs because the space disguises its violence of the political and the social, a disguise that Lefebvre views as being intrinsic to capitalism (why not socialism?), causing the illusion that this abstract space is organised and structured. This fragmentation is created by the division capital causes between individuals within a divided society, via its uneven distribution. This is all very well, but Lefebvre fails to acknowledge that abstract space is not autonomous in creating this, nor is capital, but that a variety of determinants influence this fragmentation. He positions the fragmentary nature of abstract space as being negative, and does not appear to realise that this is a socio-cultural phenomenon, one that is often desired by the social being to offer greater freedom of choice, and freedom of spatial mobility. Lefebvre seems to have taken this spatiality out of its social context, and sees it as being produced essentially by the violence of the elite classes, not by the desires and actions of society as a whole, leaving one slightly bemused as to how this abstract space affects those inhabitants within it.
Lefebvre does, however, introduce interesting and key concepts concerning the contradictory nature of abstract space. He discusses how these contradictions produce uneven development, in a similar way to that of Edward Soja. In his book Postmodern Geographies, Soja was clearly indebted to Lefebvre's theory of the production of space, for, he argues, it enabled one to observe the way the economic and social presence of capitalism produces and reproduces 'geographically 'geographically uneven uneven develop developmen mentt via simultaneous simultaneous tendenci tendencies es towards homoge homogenisation nisation,, fragmentation, and hierarchisation' 21. Unfortunately I do not have the 'space' to discuss uneven deve develop lopme ment nt in great great depth, depth, yet yet it is useful useful to appropriate appropriate when when Lefebvre Lefebvre discuss discusses es the dominance of prohibition in abstract space.
The prohibition of space is a valuable concept when analysing contemporary capitalist spaces and uneven development, for it is a concept that is in continuous operation. A simple example of it, is that of the division between the space occupied by the poor, and that space dominated by the wealthy: a spatialisation caused by this uneven development. In this instance, the poor are generally prohibited from being active within the space of the wealthy, often because they are seen as posing a threat to their secure property, or that they will spoil the optical formant of that space. The wealthy are seen to have greater control over their mobility, in that they can and may enter the poorer sections of this abstract space, for they are not directly prohibited because of their social status and class position. However, this 'open' space of the poor may also be one of prohibition, because this space may pose to a threat to the upper-classes, in terms of a high crime rate, and thus this social class (the wealthy) may help cause this space to have the 21
Soja, Edward W. - Postmodern - Postmodern Geographies (Verso, London, 1989), p.50.
9
illusion of being prohibited. This is a classic illustration of this spatial operation
22
, one that
Lefebv Lefebvre re briefly briefly acknow acknowled ledge ges. s. He, howev however, er, also offers offers an intere interestin sting g example example of the difference between the space of night and the space of day. He argues that sexual activity is welcome during the night, it has its space during this time, its abstract space is of the dark. This space is dominated by prohibition during daylight, for it is the space of work that is supposed to control space during this time of day, and sexual pleasure has no existence. This is an odd example, yet it does also illustrate how the prohibition of abstract space influences the everyday.
This performance of uneven development is the crux of abstract and contradictory space, yet prohibition does not illustrate it to the full. It is the dialectic of the centre and the periphery that Lefebvre observes as embracing these contradictions. He proposes that today, centrality is seen as total, it is the space space that continuall continually y strives to 'conc 'concentr entrate ate wealth, wealth, means means of action, knowledge, information and culture'
, in order to survive being the centre. Although history
23
has proven the space of centrality to be subject to change and mobility, whilst it is able to retain its centralised power, it is continually positioned in a dialectical relationship with its peripheral space, space, and its logic logic (its 'coher 'coherenc encee and cohes cohesiv iven eness ess''
24
). The centrecentre-peri periphe phery ry dialec dialectic tic
influences a number of spatial aspects: the commodification of space (the exchange value of commodities controlling the space of the centre and vice versa), the use value of space (the accessib accessibility ility of movin moving g to and from the centre and the periphery), periphery), the consump consumptio tion n and production of the centre, and the relationship between quantitative and qualitative space (the centrality of the space of the commod commodity ity against the peripheral peripheral space of the quality a holiday produces). Each of these contradictory spatialites help the production of space, an abstract space that is constant constantly ly determ determin ined ed by the centre-per centre-periph iphery ery dialecti dialecticc of power, power, and it is Lefebvre's discussion of Paris that allows one to analyse this concept in progress.
Paris, he argues, is like any city in that there is always something happening, and thus his analysis of its space can be applied to any other city; or can it? Because Lefebvre comes from a Marxist backgroun background, d, he has a tende tendency ncy to concen concentrate trate on class politics, politics, and as Paris is traditionally (in the contemporary sense) a city divided between the haves and the have-nots, it appears to be a prime example. Yet, his almost blinkered visions regarding other social factors, may create comple complexiti xities es when when applied applied to other other cities cities such as Los Ange Angeles les,, a city that is supposedly supposedly a classless city. city. One must realise that although although his reading of P aris is admirable, it does exclude many other factors that play a role in the determination of a centralised space.
22
Explicit detail is paid to the effects this uneven development has within Los Angeles in Davis, Mike - City Of Quartz (Vintage, Quartz (Vintage, London, 1990). 23 Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994), p.332. 24 Ibid. p.333.
10
Having put forward this complaint, I shall now examine Lefebvre's abstract space in operation. He views the differences within the centre-periphery dialectic as growing. This is due to the centralised powers dominating the representational space of the city centre, a space that has been produced to represent wealth, and where the sections on the periphery are 'becoming more working-class in character'
. This power not only determines who and what is positioned in
25
the centre, but also controls the exclusion and inclusion of this contradictory space. Here one can incorporate the above notion of prohibition. Lefebvre argues that the reason the city centre appears homogenous is because its produced space disguises those elements that cause it to reveal its fragmentary nature. This fragmentation is illustrated through those sects of society that are prohibited from performing a role in the central visual-spatial space, and those who are physically excluded and positioned on the margins (the periphery). The hegemonic political power power gover governs ns the spatial functio functioni ning ng of the city, city, creating creating a domi dominati nating ng effe effect. ct. This is undoubtedly 'true' of all cities, yet what Lefebvre attaches to this is the notion that 'abstract space is inhere inherently ntly viol violent ent''
. What What he seem seems to be sayi saying here here,, is that that any any thre threat at of
26
appropriation towards a 'politically 'politically dominated dominated space' 27, will be met with violence. violence. An An abstract abstr act space needs to be secure in its functioning of the contradictory nature of its space, and must therefore acknowledge that it is simultaneously homogenous and fragmentary, otherwise that centralised abstract space may be at risk of losing its private, global, and dominated space. What Lefebvre appears to be discussing here is that 'power aspires to control space in its entirety' 28. This can be applied to not only class politics, but also sexual politics, gender politics, and race politics; all of which are aspects that he seems to skim over regarding the dominatory nature of the centralised power. His observation that space is produced via the need of power and domination, a space that also produces that power, is a key concept when looking at Lefebvre's final 'contradiction between true space and the truth of space'
29
.
True space apparently takes its form as a mental space (the space of 'theoretical man'
30
),
whereby the conceptions of social space or rather absolute space, are transformed into abstract space. This mental space is correspondent to the space of the political, the space of power and violence, which in turn produces the structure of a space as whole: 'Representational space disappears into the representation of space - the latter swallows the former; and spatial practice, put into brackets along with social practice as a whole. endures only as the unthought aspect of the thought that has now pronounced itself sovereign ruler.' 25
Ibid. p.385. Ibid. p.387. 27 Ibid. p.387. 28 Ibid. p.388. 29 Ibid. p.397. 30 Ibid. p.398. 31 Ibid. p.398. 26
31
11
This notion of true space prevails in society, it is the space that is commonly perceived within the social realm. Lefebvre positions it in yet another dialectical relationship, combining it with the truth of space.
The truth of space is specifically what I have been discussing throughout, it is the stage when social space is combined with the theory of production (for this theory 'confirms its truth'
), a
32
combination that is needed to fully comprehend the similarities and differences between social space and mental space. It is a notion, or truth, that illustrates the way the centrality I have been discussing operates; for it is the centre that encompasses the mental and the social, regardless of prohibition, or other determining factors. However, this centre can only operate in accord accord with with its dial dialec ectic tical al relati relation onsh ship ip to the the perip periphe heral ral,, a relati relation onsh ship ip that that has been been demonstrated in all the qualities to the point of near absorption.
Lefebvre thus leaves one with a sense that space is everything, that it is that 'truth of space' which defines and controls the existence of the social subject in its everyday life. It is because he positions space as being the most influential determinant in the construction of the social, that Lefebvre has been criticised for elevating the 'urban spatial 'problematic' to an intolerably central and apparently autonomous position'
. I feel that this is a justified complaint, for it
33
does, at times, seem that Lefebvre excludes too much from his account of the production of space, such as socio-cultural determinants. He does however propose outstanding ideas when concerned with the specific spatial constraints positioned within a modern capitalist society. Although, for myself, many of his theories have seemed to be a little too 'out-there', too confusing, in that they are saturated in philosophical thought; Lefebvre's essay can be seen to be, as David Harvey comments a 'magisterial'
34
text. I mention this, because his perceptive
notion notionss of the dialec dialectica ticall relation relationshi ships ps involv involved ed in the production production of space, space, allow allow one one to consider the spatial operations involved in the make-up of the contemporary urban city, and convince one that a 'science of space' can be established if one were to use Lefebvre's ideas to examine examine the often often confusi confusing ng and contradi contradictory ctory nature of postmo postmoder dern n spaces spaces such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
32
Ibid. p.399. Soja, Edward W. - Postmodern Geographies (Verso, London, 1989), p.76. 34 Lefebvre, Lefebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994), p.425. 33
12
Bibliography
Davis, Mike - City Of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (Vintage, (Vintage, London,1990). London,1990) . Harvey, David - The Condition Of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural
Change (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1990). Lefebvre, Henri - The Production Of Space, translated by Donald Nicholson-Sm Nicholson-Smith ith (Blacwell (Blacwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994). Soja, Edward W. - Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social (Verso, London, L ondon, 1989). Theory (Verso,
13
′
